## Characterizing Risk Associated with Vessel Fouling and Non

‐ indigenous Species in Prince William Sound

Jeffery Cordell and Elizabeth Sosik

School of Aquatic and Fishery Science; University of Washington

and

Maurya Faulkner and Chris Scianni

California State Lands Commission

Prepared for the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens ʹ Advisory Council

October 30, 20092 

## Table of contents

Table of contents

.............................................................................................................................. ................................... 2

Figures

.............................................................................................................................. ...................................................... 4

Tables

.............................................................................................................................. ........................................................ 5

Appendix Tables

.............................................................................................................................. ................................... 5

Executive Summary

.............................................................................................................................. ............................ 6

Introduction

.............................................................................................................................. ......................................... 12

Shipping Data

.............................................................................................................................. ...................................... 14

Methods

.............................................................................................................................. .............................................. 14

Data Categories

.............................................................................................................................. .................................. 15

Results

.............................................................................................................................. .................................................... 16

All ports combined

.............................................................................................................................. ........................... 16 Ship arrivals by y ear. ........................................................................................................ .............................................. 16 Voyage type s by y ear........................................................................................................... ........................................... 16 Voyage histories .............................................................................................................. ............................................... 17

Duration of time in port ...................................................................................................... ............................................ 19

By port

.............................................................................................................................. ................................................ 20 Ship arrivals by year and port. ............................................................................................... ........................................ 20 Ship types by port............................................................................................................. .............................................. 21 Voyage type s by po rt .......................................................................................................... ............................................ 23 Voyage historie s by port ...................................................................................................... ........................................... 23

Voyage histories by vessel type

.............................................................................................................................. ..... 24

Number of arri vals by year..................................................................................................... ........................................ 24 Number of repeat vis its by vesse l type. ....................................................................................... ................................... 25

Duration of time in port ...................................................................................................... ............................................ 26 Voyage types by vessel type ................................................................................................... ........................................ 28 Voyage history by vessel type ................................................................................................. ....................................... 29

Conclusions

.............................................................................................................................. ........................................ 30 Risk based on visitation patterns (time in port vs frequency) ................................................................. ....................... 31

Risk based on port ............................................................................................................ .............................................. 33

Hull Maintenance

.............................................................................................................................. .............................. 35

Hull Maintenance Overview

.............................................................................................................................. .......... 35

Hull Maintenance Procedure

.............................................................................................................................. ........ 37

Anti-Fouling Systems

.............................................................................................................................. ...................... 37

Hot Spots

.............................................................................................................................. ............................................ 38

Other Risk Factors

.............................................................................................................................. .......................... 39

Example Hull Maintenance Schedules ...................................................................................................................... 40

Hull fouling sampling meth ods and recommendations .................................................................................... 433 Introduction

.............................................................................................................................. ...................................... 43

Methods

.............................................................................................................................. .............................................. 43

Visual Rank Assessment ........................................................................................................ ........................................ 43 Diving ........................................................................................................................ .................................................... 43 Dry Dock ...................................................................................................................... .................................................. 44

Archival Vide o Foot age ........................................................................................................ ......................................... 44

ROV ........................................................................................................................... .................................................... 45

Pros and Cons

.............................................................................................................................. ................................... 47

Cost .......................................................................................................................... ...................................................... 47 Representa tiveness ............................................................................................................ ............................................. 47 Data Type an d Quality ......................................................................................................... ........................................... 47

Assessment of ROV and Diver Sampling ................................................................................................................. 49

ROV ........................................................................................................................... .................................................... 49 Diver Surveys ................................................................................................................. ................................................ 50

Recommendations

.............................................................................................................................. ............................ 51

Level one—Archived video ...................................................................................................... ..................................... 52

Level two—ROV and di ver video surveys ......................................................................................... ........................... 53 Level three—targeted biolog ical sampling by divers ............................................................................ ......................... 53

References

.............................................................................................................................. ............................................. 554 

## Figures

Figure 1. Total vessel arrivals per year to Alaska ports of in terest 2005-2008. ..................................... 16 Figure 2. Number of voyage types per year to Alaska ports of interest 2005-2008. . ............................ 17 Figure 3. Voyage history of all arrivals per ye ar to Alaska ports of interest 2005-2008. . ..................... 18 Figure 4. Voyage histories of vessels entering Alas kan ports of interest fro m the Pacific northwest

United States and British Columbia 2005-2008. . .......................................................................... 18 Figure 5. Voyage histories of vessels entering Alaskan ports of intere st from Asia 2005-2008. ........... 19 Figure 6. Duration in port of all vessel arriva ls to Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008. ...................... 20 Figure 7. Total arrivals to each port of interest per year, 2005-2008. .................................................... 21 Figure 8. Percent composition of vessel traffi c to Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008. ...................... 22 Figure 9. Percent composition of voy age types for vessels entering Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-

2008. . ....................................................................................................................... ....................... 23 Figure 10. Percent composition of voyage histories fo r vessels entering Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-

2008. . ....................................................................................................................... ....................... 24 Figure 11. The total arrivals of each vessel type per year for vessels en tering Alaskan ports of interest,

2005-2008. .................................................................................................................... .................. 25 Figure 12. The number of arrivals of each vessel type staying in port more than 72 hours, for vessels entering Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008. ............................................................................... 28 Figure 13. Percent composition of voyage types by ve ssel type, for vessels entering Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008. .......................................................................................................... .............. 29 Figure 14. Percent composition of voyage histories by ve ssel type, for vessels entering Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008. ......................................................................................................... .............. 305 

## Tables

Table 1. Average number of each vessel type per y ear arriving to Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008.

.............................................................................................................................. ........................... 22 Table 2. Average and maximum number of visits to Alaskan ports of interest 2005-2008 by vessel type.

.............................................................................................................................. ........................... 26 Table 3. Duration in port (hours) of arrivals to Alaskan ports of interest 2005-2008 by vessel type. .... 27 Table 4. Average number of each voyage type by vessel type, for arrivals to Alaskan ports of interest

2005-2008.. ................................................................................................................... .................. 28 Table 5. Average numbers of each voyage history type for arrivals to Alaskan ports of interest 2005- 2008 by vessel type.. ......................................................................................................... .............. 30 Table 6. Hull maintenance of tank ships ope rating in Alaskan ports of interest .................................... 42 Table 7. Hull fouling studies and methods ..................................................................................... ........ 46



## Appendix Tables

Appendix Table 1. Voyage historie s of vessels entering Alaskan por ts of interest, 2005-2008. NW =

Pacific northwest of United States + British Co lumbia, SF = San Francisco Bay area, S. CA =

southern California. .......................................................................................................... ............... 60 Appendix Table 2. Number of arrivals to Alas kan ports of interest 2005-2008 by vessel type. ............ 61 Appendix Table 3. Voyage types of arrivals by po rt, 2005-2008, for vessels entering Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008. .......................................................................................................... .............. 62 Appendix Table 4. Voyage types of incoming arriva ls by vessel type, 2005-2008, for vessels entering Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008. ......................................................................................... .... 63 Appendix Table 5. Voyage history of incoming arri vals to Alaskan ports of interest 2005-2008 by vessel type. .................................................................................................................. .................... 64 Appendix Table 6. Distribution of fouling organisms outside their native ranges. ................................ 65 Appendix Table 7. Anti-fouling paints used and hull locations where applied. ..................................... 686 

## Executive Summary

Little is known about the organisms associated with the hulls of ships enteri ng the coastal waters of

Alaska, but fouling biota on ship’s hulls elsewhere have been shown to be diverse and contain species

that are not native to many of the re gions visited by the ships. An initial step in assessing the potential

risk of invasions by non-indigenous sp ecies (NIS) associated with ship’s hulls is to characterize vessel

arrivals with regard to risk factors such as voya ge history, time spent in port, vessel type, and the

distribution and nature of shippi ng intensity among ports. Another in formation-gathering step is to

summarize information about hull cleaning and main tenance practices of major vessel types that

comprise potential vectors for NIS. This informati on can be used to evaluate the scale of risk of

introductions by fouling organisms among vessel types, routes, and ports, and can help identify regions

likely to contribute NIS. This approach can help to focus subsequent efforts targeting specific risk

factors. Understanding hull fouling associated invasion risk ultimately requires measuring biota

associated with hulls. This type of analysis can range from low resolution data gathered from archived

hull maintenance video to comprehensive remote-ope rated vehicle or diver su rveys (the latter can

include physical samples of fouling communities), but co sts for these kinds of analyses increase as the

data quality and quantity increases. Thus, analyzi ng shipping patterns, hull maintenance practices, and

the pros and cons of various hull fouling sampli ng methods can help prior itize how to focus more

intensive and comprehensive sampling efforts. In this report, we examine these factors, with particular

regard to Prince William Sound, Alaska.

The overall goals of this project were as follows:

• Evaluate 2005-2008 vessel arrival data for ports in Prince William Sound and the Ports of Kodiak and Seward (henceforth termed ports of interest).

• Conduct an initial assessment of tankers trav eling to Prince William Sound, by evaluating maintenance schedules and periodic ity and location of hull cleaning.

• Summarize the literature on hull fouli ng studies and hull sampling techniques.

• Based on the results, evaluate and recommend samp ling and analysis protoc ols that can be used

in studies of hull f ouling in the region.

Shipping Patterns

In order to evaluate shipping pa tterns, we obtained vessel arrival data from the US Coast Guard’s

Shipping Arrival Notification Syst em (SANS) for the years 2005-2008, fo r the ports of interest—Cape

Hinchinbrook, College Fjord, Cordova, Kodiak, Prince William Sound (No port given), Seward,7 Tatitlek, Valdez, and Whittier. The data received incl uded information on the port of arrival, date and

time of arrival, vessel name, date and time of depart ure, previous ports visite d, and the time of arrival

to and departure from the previous ports.

In addition to examining patterns of all vessel arrivals combined, arriva l data for indivi dual vessel visits

were categorized by voyage type, vessel type, time sp ent in port, and voyage history. The main

findings from the vessel arriva l data were as follows:

• Total vessel arrivals declined from 2005 to 2008, with the sharpest drop in 2006.

• Most arrivals were tank and pa ssenger vessels originating from the west coast, followed by

domestic (within Alaska) and transpacific voyages.

• The most commonly visited way-points on voyage s were in the Puget Sound area and British

Columbia, followed by the San Francisc o Bay area and Southern California.

• The majority of arrivals stayed in port for less than 24 hours, but there was a small subset of

vessels that stayed in port more than 72 hour s consisting mostly of tank ships (2005), passenger

vessels (2006) and fishing boats (2007 and 2008). In each year, there was at least one arrival

that stayed more than 72 hours fo r most of the vessel categories.

• Valdez had the majority of arrivals, followed by much lower arrival numbers, in decreasing

order at Whittier, Kodiak, Seward, Prince William Sound (No port given), Cordova, Cape

Hinchinbrook, College Fjord, and Tatitlek.

• Ports of interest with relativ ely high shipping activity had di fferent patterns based on vessel

types visiting: Valdez was dominated by tank ships, Whittier by passenger and towing vessels,

Kodiak by fishing and freight vessels, and Seward by passenger vessels.

• Ports with high shipping activity also varied by vo yage type of arriving vessels: those arriving

in Kodiak came mainly from within Alaska , while those arriving to Valdez, Whittier, and

Seward were mostly from elsewhere on the west coast of North America.

• Ports that had relatively high propor tions of arrivals that had vi sited potential NIS “hot spots”

in their voyage histories included Valdez, Cape Hinchinbrook (San Franci sco Bay), Seward and

Kodiak (Asia).

• Ship types that had relatively high proportions of arri vals that had visite d potential NIS “hot8 spots” in their voyage historie s included tank ships (San Fran cisco Bay), passenger vessels and

freight ships (Asia).

The analysis identified two categories of vessels: t hose that have set routes and make numerous brief

return trips to the same port, and t hose that return to port infrequently but stay in port for long periods

of time. The first type presents a risk of re peat inoculations of NI S (potential high propagule

frequency), and the second represents risk based on less frequent inocul ations with longer “incubation”

time for NIS to release propagules (potential high propagule volume). Tank ships and passenger vessels

represent the high frequency risk cat egory, while freight and fishing vessels represent the high volume

risk category.

Several ports probably have relatively higher risk of NIS being introduced from hull fouling. Valdez

has the highest overall amount of vessel traffic, w ith relatively high numbers of vessels that had

previously visited potential NI S “hot spots” in Puget Sound, Sa n Francisco Bay, and Southern

California. Whittier and Seward may be at risk from the high volume of passenger vessel and towing

vessel traffic arriving from elsewher e on the Pacific coast of North America. Fouling organisms may

have better survival rates on these vessel types due to relatively short voya ges in coastal waters

hospitable to the organisms. Towing vessels may al so have higher survival rates because of slow

average voyage speeds. A relatively large propor tion of passenger vessels ha d stops in Mexico and

Asia that may be sources of NIS, they operate in the summer months when propagule pressure may be

high, and the high return rate of the vessels allows for potential repeat inoculations.

Domestic freight ships and fishing boats may presen t a risk to the port of Kodiak from secondary

invasion by already introduced NIS arriving from other Alaskan ports. Relatively long “residence time”

of fishing boats and freight ships may allow for th e accumulation and/or release of fouling organisms.

Hull Maintenance

Currently, there is little federal regulation regard ing hull husbandry practices: vessels are only required

to rinse anchors and anchor chai ns to remove organisms and rem ove fouling organisms from hull,

piping, and tanks on a regular basis. However, the main ship type traveling to Prince William Sound

waters, crude oil tankers engaged in coastwise trade, are exempt fr om these requirements. Tank ship

companies conduct voluntary high pressure washing of hulls, usually in c onjunction with dry dock9 inspections that are typically requi red every five years, but this cleaning is conducted for operational

reasons, and fouling that does not interfere with ship operations may be allowed to persist.

Several factors related to hull maintenance are important with regard to the risk of transporting fouling

NIS, including time since last cleaning and re-painting, use of anti-foulin g treatment systems,

maintenance of “hot spots” such as sea chests, cleaning method, and where the ship has been since

being cleaned. In order to colle ct preliminary data on these factors, we evaluated maintenance

information from 18 of the 26 tank ships operati ng Prince William Sound from 2005 to 2008. This

information was acquired by the California Marine Invasives Program at the California State Lands

Commission (CSLC), from reporting forms submitte d to the CSLC by ship operators. The data

collected includes:

1. Dates and location of last out of water maintenance.

2. Date of last full or partial co at of anti-fouling paint applicat ion, type of biocide used, and

locations of the hull where applied.

3. Whether Marine Growth Protection Systems have been installed in the sea-chests.

4. Dates of in water cleaning, if applicable.

5. Whether the vessel has, since the last cleaning: recently visited freshwater or tropical areas,

been through the Panama Canal, or stayed ten consecutive days in a single port.

Of the 18 vessels, the greatest durati on of time since last maintenance or build was five years, and the

average time since last maintenance or build was two years. All of the shipping companies interviewed

reported conducting hull cleanings wi th a high pressure wash on dr y dock at least once every five

years.

Hull Fouling Sampling Methods and Recommendations

Five techniques have been commonly used to sample biofouling on hulls: (1) ev aluating archival video

footage of under water in lieu of Drydock (UWILD) inspections; (2) conducting above-water visual

rank assessment; (3) collecting specimens and phot o quadrats immediately af ter a vessel has been

drydocked; (4) using divers to collect specimens and conduct underwater photo quadrats; and (5) using

remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) to conduct video transects.10 Inspection of archived maintenance videos can yiel d broad patterns of fouling across numerous ships,

and is relatively inexpensive to process. On the down side, videos are usually taken near the end of a

ship’s maintenance cycle, and thus may be biased toward the most highly f ouled conditions, and most

species cannot be identified in vide os. Likewise, visual rank assessment, using a ranking of 0 to 5 for

intensity of fouling, can yield large amounts of data at low expense, but yields biased data in that only

small vessels and the parts of the hull visi ble from above the wa ter can be assessed.

Collecting data during scheduled dry-docking events is also a relatively inexpensive option, and could

allow for collection of specimens for species-level id entifications. However, because tank ships in the

northeast Pacific usually drydock in As ia, costs would include travel to Asian drydock facilities that

service the tank ships. As with videos, sampli ng drydocked vessels may also yield biased samples

because they are at the end of a maintenance cycle, and access to a hull in drydock could be nonuniform: for example, if specimens could only be collected from areas accessible by ladder, the

majority of the hull would not be characterized.

The use of divers and ROVs are the most expensive options, but costs may be lowered if divers or an

ROV are available within the institution conducti ng the sampling. Diver and ROV surveys can be

conducted at any point in a vessel's maintenance sc hedule, and thus provide a more representative

sampling regime. They can also be done on predetermi ned transects and/or “hot spots” of interest.

ROVs can stay in the water indefinitely, while divers are time-limited. However, in addition to visual

surveys, divers can collect quantitative samples of biota for species level identification, including

focusing on observed “hot spots”.

We recommend a three-level sampling strategy for eval uating hull fouling. The first level would utilize

UWILD video footage from vessels arriving to Prince William Sound. If the videos contain enough

footage to sufficiently cover vessel types and underwater surfaces, a set number of quadrats from still

frames would be randomly examined on each hull, along with semi-random quadrats on non-hull “hot

spot” surfaces. Taxa richness and percentage cove r data would then be an alyzed. If enough adequate

footage is found, this level would yield information on the extent of biofouling across a large subset of

vessels arriving to Prince William Sound, but would not provide information on specific NIS. If the

data from archival footage supplies enough informa tion to detect fouling patterns associated with

vessel types, voyage types, etc., th en studies may proceed to a smaller more focused level three study.

If meaningful patterns cannot be detected due to limitations of the archived video, a level two study11 may be conducted.

In a level two study, ROV or diver video surveys woul d be conducted that offer more ability to target

ports, vessel types, or voyage types of interest, and specific areas on an individual hull. The control

afforded by this method allows vessels to be direc tly compared in a uniform manner. Divers or ROVs

would conduct several transects alo ng the length of a vessel's hull, followed by special attention “hot

spots”. A real-time video feed may also be view ed by biologists who could identify areas to be

sampled. During post-processing of videos taken at th is level, videos could be paused at both random

points and targeted focal points to obtain percent cover and presence/ absence of organisms at broad

taxonomic levels. As with archived video, a leve l two study would not provi de much species-level

identification of potential NIS.

Level three study would involve ta rgeted biological sampling that could be conducted on vessels of

interest. This sampling could also be done in c onjunction with level two sa mpling, if it is conducted by

divers. This method is the most costly and might best be conducted by strategically narrowing the

subset of vessels to be sampled to those that are hypothesized to be high risk vectors, as determined by

level one and two sampling. Divers would collect representative sa mples of fouling observed along

transects on vessel hulls, and video or visual assessment could also be conducted. Transects could be

saved as video files and analyzed extensively. Biological samples coul d be rapidly assessed while alive,

but most species identifications would be done fr om samples that are fixed and sent to taxonomic

experts. Level three sampling yields high resolu tion information on specific fouling organisms and

potential and known NIS found in hull samples. Pe rcent cover can also be obtained, though due to

limitations in the time divers can spend in the water, this data may be limited to only portions of a

vessel.12 

## Introduction

Though little studied in comparison to ship’s ballast waters, fouling biota on sh ip’s hulls have been

shown to be diverse and in some cases comprised of numerous species that ar e not native to many of

the regions visited by the ships. For example, Drake and Lodge (2007) found that a single ship

entering the Great Lakes from Algeria had 74 marine and freshwater taxa, at least eight of which had

never been seen in the Great Lake s; hull fouling may be responsible for at least 75% of the shipmediated NIS in Port Philip Bay, Australia (Hewit t 2004); a recent sampling of biota scraped from hulls

of commercial vessels in Germa ny showed NIS on 96% of the 131 sh ips examined (Gollasch 2002); a

survey of 8 vessels in Hawaii found NIS on the hulls of a majority of the vessels, despite low levels of

fouling (Godwin 2003); and a single inspection of a relatively clean passenger vessel in Australia found

a number of NIS in protected areas of th e ship, including the European green crab Carcinus maenus

( Coutts et al 2003). A series of rapid assessm ent surveys in Washington, Oregon and California

consistently found significant levels of invasive fouling organisms on doc ks, pilings and other intertidal

structures (Cohen et al. 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005a, 2005b). Other papers, such as Davidson et al. (2006a)

and Coutts and Taylor (2004), while not addressing specific NIS speci es assemblages, point out the

biosecurity risks posed by hull fouling.

Recent studies of ships as vectors of NIS in Alas ka have focused on ballast water (Ruiz et al. 2000,

McGee et al. 2006). Very little is kn own about the organisms associated with the hulls of ships entering

the coastal waters of Alaska, though an examination by Ruiz et al. ( 2000) of the hulls of two tankers

entering Valdez, Alaska, found a diverse fouling a ssemblage including one NIS mussel species on the

vessel that had not been recently cleaned. An initial step in assessing the potential risk of invasions by

NIS associated with ship’s hulls is to characterize ship ar rivals with regard to risk factors such as

voyage history, time spent in port, vessel type, and the distribution and nature of shipping intensity

among ports. Another information-gathering step is to summarize information about hull cleaning and

maintenance practices of major vessel types that comp rise potential vectors for NIS. This information

can be used to evaluate the scale of risk of in troductions by fouling organisms among various vessel

types, routes, and ports, and can help to identify the regions likely to contribute NIS. This approach

can help to focus subsequent efforts that target specific risk factors. Understanding hull fouling

associated invasion risk ultimately requires measuring bi ota associated with hulls. This type of analysis

can range from low resolution data gathered from archived hull maintenance video to comprehensive13 remote-operated vehicle or diver surveys (the latter can include physical samples of fouling

communities), but costs for these kinds of analyses increase greatly with increases in data quality and

quantity. Thus, initial analyses of shipping patterns, hull maintenance practices, and the pros and cons

of various hull fouling sampling methods can help prioritize how to focus more intensive and

comprehensive sampling efforts. In this report, we examine these factors, with particular regard to

Prince William Sound, Alaska.

The overall goals of this project were as follows:

• Evaluate 2005-2008 vessel arrival data for ports in Prince William Sound and the Ports of Kodiak and Seward (henceforth termed ports of interest).

• Conduct an initial assessment of tankers trav eling to Prince William Sound, by evaluating maintenance schedules and periodic ity and location of hull cleaning.

• Summarize the literature on hull fouling studi es and hull sampling techniques, and related topics such as remote assays of organisms for other purposes.

• Based on the results, evaluate and recommend samp ling and analysis protoc ols that can be used

in studies of hull f ouling in the region.14 

## Shipping Data

Methods

The Ship Arrival Notification System (SANS) is a da tabase that provides advance notice of arrival and

departure information from vessels coming to port in the United States. Vessel Notice of Arrival

Reports (NOA) that are compiled by SANS record information received from a vessel’s owner,

operator, or agent relating to the arrival and depart ure of vessels. Data incl udes details about vessels,

reporting party, arrival and departure times, voyage information, crew, passenger and cargo manifest,

previous ports visited, and ship security and safety certifications . According to 33 CFR 160, certain

vessels are required to submit NOAs to the Nati onal Vessel Movement Center (NVMC), operated by

the US Coast Guard. All US and foreign vessels b ound for or departing from por ts or places the US

must submit NOAs; however there are numerous exemp tions. Vessels that are not required to submit

NOAs include, but are not limited to: (1) US recrea tional vehicles; (2) passenger and supply vessels

engaged in the exploration for or re moval of oil, gas, or mineral reso urces on the continental shelf; (3)

oil spill recovery vessels engaged in spill response ope rations or exercises; (4) vessels 300 gross tons or

less, unless carrying dangerous cargo; (5) vessels ope rating exclusively within a Captain of the Port

Zone, unless carrying dangerous cargo; (6) towing vessels and barges operating solely between ports or

places within the continental US, unless carrying dange rous cargo; and (7) public vessels. Due to these

exemptions, gaps in the data may exist and the SANS database should not be c onsidered an exhaustive

record of all shipping traffic. The SANS database is, however, the most extensive database available.

Ship arrival data was obtained from the SANS for the years 2005-2008. We specifically requested data

for the ports of Cape Hinchinbrook, College Fj ord, Cordova, Kodiak, Prince William Sound (No port

given), Seward, Tatitlek, Valdez and Whittier. These ports are henceforth referred to as the ports of

interest.

The raw data received included information on the port of arrival, date and time of arrival, vessel name,

date and time of departure, previous ports visited, and the time of arrival to and departure from the

previous ports. The data was processed to eliminat e repeat entries, and to ensure that arrival and

departure times were in logical sequence.

Each entry was assigned one of the following voyage t ypes: domestic, west coast, transpacific, other,15 west coast-domestic, transpacific- domestic and transpacific-west coast-domestic. Domestic voyages

were those that had not reported visiting ports outside of Alaska . West coast voyages were those

confined to the east Pacific. Transpacific voyages we re those that had crosse d a significan t portion of

the Pacific, including Asia, Australia, French Polyne sia, and Hawaii. 'Other' voyages were those that

did not fit into the other main cat egories, and included Europe, the Gulf of Mexico, and Africa. The

multiple voyage type categories (west coast-domesti c, transpacific domestic, and transpacific-west

coast-domestic) were of special note, as the hulls of vessels from these types of voyages might have

been exposed to a diverse array of potential fouling organisms.

Each entry was also assigned a vessel category whic h included fishing boat, tank ship, freight ship,

passenger vessel, towing vessel, and other. Freight ships included any type of cargo ship. The “other”

category was used for any vessel that did not f it into the other main categories, and included

recreational vessels, research vessels, and cable ships.

A second database was created in which all previous por t entries were tagged with a keyword. The

keywords included Northwest (NW); British Colu mbia (BC); Puget Sound area (Puget); Oregon (OR);

San Francisco Bay area (San Francisco); Mexico; Sout h America; Central America; Pacific Islands and

Australia (South Pacific); Asia; Japan; South Korea; Singapore; China; India; Russia; Malaysia; and

Vietnam.



## Data Categories

The data was arranged in a the following ways to highlight potential trends :

• total number of vessel arrivals per year.

• total number of different voyage t ypes for all arrivals per year.

• voyage history of all arrivals per year.

• duration of time in port for each arrival, per year.

• total number of vessel arri vals per year, by port.

• average number of each vessel type arriving to each port of interest.

• average number of different voyage types for each port of interest.

• average voyage history of all arrivals, by Port.

• total number of vessel arriva ls per year, by vessel type.

• average number of repeat visits for each vessel type.

• duration of time in port for each arri val of each vessel type, per year.16 • average number of different voyage types for each vessel type.

• average voyage history of a ll arrivals, by vessel type.



## Results

All ports combined

Ship arrivals by year.

The number of total vessel arrivals declined from 2005 to 2008, with the sharpest drop in 2006 (Figure

1).

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

2005 2006 2007 2008

YearArrivals

Figure 1. Total vessel arrivals per year to Alaska ports of interest 2005-2008.

Voyage types by year

The majority of incoming arrivals originated from the west coast. Domestic voyages were the next

most common type of arrival, followed by transp acific voyages. Total west coast voyages (which

include west coast-domestic voyages) decreased in 2006, and then stabilized. Total domestic voyages

decreased in 2007 and stabilized in 2008. Total transp acific voyages (which include all multiple voyage

types that had a transpacific co mponent) did not change through the study period (Figure 2).17 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Domestic Other Total Transp Total WC

Voyage TypeArrivals 

## 2005

2006

2007

2008

Figure 2. Number of voyage types pe r year to Alaska ports of in terest 2005-2008. Domestic = voyages within Alaska, Transp = transpacific voyages, WC = voyages from the west coast of North America, excluding domestic voyages.

Voyage histories

The most commonly visited way-points on voyages were located in the Pacific Northwest region of the

United States and British Columbia (PNW), with an average of 469 visits (Figure 3, Appendix Table 1).

Within this region, the Puget Sound area was the most commonly visited with 253-390 visits per year,

followed by British Columbia with 153-195 visits per year, and Oregon with 13-39 visits per year

(Figure 4, Appendix Table 1). The San Francisco Bay area was the next most commonly visited region

with an average of 165 visits, followed by Southern Ca lifornia with an average of 100 visits. There was

little difference in the visit frequencies of the othe r four regions; Asia had an average of 34 visits,

Mexico an average of 24 visits, th e South Pacific an average of 19 vi sits and ‘other’ locations had an

average of 13.5 visits (Figures 3, 5, Appendix Table 1). There was a general de cline in waypoint visits

over the study period to the Pacifi c Northwest, San Francisco, Southe rn California, and Asia regions,

and a small increase in visits over the study period to the South Paci fic, Mexico and ‘other’ regions

(Figure 3, Appendix Table 1).18 0 200 400 600 800

Asia NW SF S.CA S. Pacific Other Mexico

Voyage WaypointsArrivals 

### 2005

2006

2007

2008

Figure 3. Voyage history of all arrivals per year to Alaska ports of interest 2005-2008. NW = Pacific northwest of United States + British Columbia, SF = San Francisco Bay area, S. CA = southern

California.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

OR Puget BC

Voyage WaypointsArrivals 

### 2005

2006

2007

2008

Figure 4. Voyage histories of vessels entering Alas kan ports of interest fro m the Pacific northwest

United States and British Columbia 2005-2008. OR = Oregon, Puget = Puget Sound, Washington, BC =

British Columbia.19 0 5 10 15 20 25

Japan South Korea China Russia Malaysia India Singapore Vietnam

Voyage WaypointsArrivals 

### 2005

2006

2007

2008

Figure 5. Voyage histories of vessels enteri ng Alaskan ports of in terest from Asia 2005-2008.

Duration of time in port

The majority of arrivals stayed in port for less than 24 hours (455-572 arrivals per year). The number of

vessels in port for 24-48 hours was much lower (44- 131 arrivals per year) a nd the lowest number of

vessels were in port for 48-72 hours (9-25 arrivals ). There was a small increase in the number of

arrivals staying in port for longer than 72 hours (30-39 arrivals). There was a ge neral decrease over the

course of the study period in number of vessels st aying in port for 0-24, 24- 48, and 48-72 hours, while

the numbers of vessels in the >72 hour category was similar among years. The sharpest decreases

occurred in 2006 (Figure 6)20 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0-24 24-48 48-72 >72

Duration of time in port (hours)Arrivals 

## 2005

2006

2007

2008

Figure 6

. Duration in port of all vessel arrivals to Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008.



### By port

Ship arrivals by year and port.

Valdez had the majority of arrivals from 2005-2008 (299-414 arrivals, aver age = 335.75 per year),

followed by much lower arrival numbers at Whittie r (87-122 arrivals, average = 103.5 per year),

Kodiak (75-138 arrivals, average = 97.5 per year), and Seward (64-81 arrivals, average = 72.75 per

year) (Figure 7). Ports of interest with the lo west arrival rates were: Prince William Sound (11-16

arrivals, average = 13.25 per year), Cordova (4 -12 arrivals, average = 7.25 per year), Cape

Hinchinbrook (1-16 arrivals, average = 5.75 per year), College Fjord (0-16 arri vals, average = 4.25 per

year) and Tatilek (0-6 arrivals, av erage = 1.5 per year). There was a ge neral decrease in arrivals over

the course of the study in the ports of Valdez, Kodiak and Whittier. The majority of this drop occurred

in 2006, with Valdez experiencing the largest decrease in arrivals (Appendix Table 2).21 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Cape Hinchinbroo k

Co

l leg

e Fjor d Cordova Kodiak

Pr

i n c e Wi l li a

m

So

un

d

S ewa r d Valde z Whittier Ta t il e k

Port NameNumber of arrivals 

### 2005

2006

2007

2008

Figure 7. Total arrivals to each por t of interest per year, 2005-2008.

Ship types by port

Tank ships comprised the greatest proportion of arrivals on average in Valdez (94.7% of the total),

which represented 96.7% of total ta nk ship arrivals (Table 1, Figure 8). Whittier’s arrivals on average

were almost exclusively passenger vessels and to wing vessels (63.0% and 35.0% of Whittier traffic,

respectively) which represented 45.0% of total passe nger vessel arrivals and 65.9% of total towing

vessel arrivals. The largest proportio n of arrivals to Kodiak were freight ships, followed by fishing

boats (53.6% and 27.4% of Kodiak tr affic, respectively), which repres ented 79.5% of the total freight

ship arrivals and 63.3% of fishi ng boat arrivals. Seward’s traffic was mainly composed of passenger

vessels (77.3% of Seward traffi c), which represented 38.8% of tota l passenger vessel arrivals. (See

Appendix Table 2 for yearly counts).22Table 1. Average number of each vessel type per yeararriving to Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008.Ship Type Cape Hinchinbrook College Fjord Cordova Kodiak PWS Seward Valdez Whittier Tatilek Total ResultFishing 0.00.0 3.0 26.8 5.8 3.32.3 1.3 0.042.3Freight 0.00.0 0.3 52.3 2.0 7.53.3 0.5 0.065.8Passenger 0.0 4.3 2.0 10.3 0.5 56.35.0 65.3 1.5 145.0Tank 5.80.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.3318.0 0.3 0.0 329.0Towing 0.00.0 1.8 6.0 0.0 3.87.3 36.3 0.055.0Other 0.00.0 0.3 2.3 0.3 1.80.0 0.0 0.04.5Grand Total5.84.3 7.3 97.5 13.3 72.8 335.8 103.5 1.5 641.50%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Cape Hinc h inb r ook

Col le ge Fj or d C o rdova Ko d iak Prin c e Will i am Sound Sewa r d V al dez W hi tti er T atilekPort

ArrivalsOtherTowingTankPassengerFreightFishingFigure 8. Percent composition of vessel traffic to Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008.23 Voyage types by port

Total west coast voyages (combining west coast a nd west coast-domestic voyages) accounted for the

majority of arrivals in Valdez, Whittier, Sewar d, Prince William Sound (No por t given), College Fjord,

Cape Hinchinbrook and Tatilek. Cordova and Kodiak were the only two ports where domestic voyages

accounted for the majority of arrivals. Total tran spacific voyages arrived mainly to (in order of

prevalence) the ports of Valdez, Seward, Whittier and Kodiak (Figure 9). (See Appendix Table 3 for

yearly counts).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

C

a p

e

H

i n

c h

i n b

r o

o k

C

o l l e g

e

F j o

r d

C o

r d

o

v a

K o d i a k

P

r i n c e

W

i l l i a

m

S

o

u

n d

S e

w

a

r d

V a l d

e

z W h

i t t i e

r

T a t i l e k

PortArrivals 

## Total WC

Domestic

Total Transp

Other

Figure 9. Percent composition of voy age types for vessels entering Alaskan ports of interest, 2005- 2008. Domestic = voyages within Alaska, Transp = transpacific voyages, WC = voyages from the west coast of North America, excluding domestic voyages.

Voyage histories by port

On average, vessels that stopped in the PNW were the most frequent contributors to to tal arrivals at

every port of interest (Figure 10). Valdez received the large majority of these vessels, followed by

Whittier, Seward and Kodiak. Vessels that stopped in the San Francisco region were on average the

next most frequent contributors to total arrivals, and mo st of these entered Valdez (Figure 10). Vessels

that stopped in the Southern California region were the third most frequent contributor to total arrivals,

and also visited Valdez almost exclusively (Figur e 10). Vessels that stopped in Asia, Mexico, and24 ‘other’ areas contributed a small fract ion to total arrivals. Vessels from Asia arrived mainly to Valdez,

Seward, Kodiak and Whittier; vessels from Mexico ar rived mainly to Seward and Whittier; and vessels

from ‘other’ regions arrived mainly to Seward and Whittier (Figure 10).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ca pe

Hinch inbr ook

Co

llege Fjo rd

C

ordova Kodiak

Pr

in

ce William Soun d

Sew ar

d Tatit lek

V ald ez W

hit

tier

PortArrivals 

### Mexico

Other

South

Pacific S. CA

SF

NW

Asia

Figure 10. Percent composition of voyage histories fo r vessels entering Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-

2008. NW = Pacific northwest of United States + Br itish Columbia, SF = San Francisco Bay area, S.

CA = southern California.



### Voyage histories by vessel type

Number of arrivals by year

Tank ships were the largest contributors to to tal arrivals from 2005 to 2008, followed by passenger

vessels, freight ships, towing ve ssels, fishing boats, and ‘other’ types of vessels, respectively

(Appendix Table 2, Figure 11). Ther e was a decline in 2006 in total arrivals of tank, passenger, freight

and towing vessels, while arrivals of fishing boats and ‘other’ vesse ls were similar throughout the study

period. Tank ship arrivals decl ined throughout the study period and had the greatest decrease

(Appendix Table 2, Figure 11).25 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Fishing Freight Passenger Tank Towing Other

Vessel typeArrivals 

## 2005

2006

2007

2008

Figure 11. The total arrivals of each vessel type per year for vessels en tering Alaskan ports of interest,

2005-2008.

Number of repeat visits by vessel type.

Tank ships had the highest rate of repeat visits for 2005 to 2008 (average = 13.46 – 17.6 visits per year

per vessel, maximum = 24 – 30 visits per year—Table 2). Passenger vessels had th e next highest rate of

repeat visits (average = 6.2 – 7.4 visits per year per vessel, maximum = 10 – 25 visits per year). Towing

and freight vessels had similar rates of repeat visi ts (Towing: average = 3.7 – 5.1 visits per year per

vessel, maximum = 21 – 31 visits per year; freigh t: average = 3.1 – 5.1 visits per year per vessel,

maximum = 31 – 34 visits per year; Table 2.26 Table 2. Average and maximum number of visits to Alaskan ports of interest 2005-2008 by vessel type.

Average Fishing Freight Passenger Tank Towing

2005 1.47 5.09 7.41 15.92 5.07

2006 2.00 3.23 6.63 13.46 4.33

2007 1.26 3.56 6.20 16.11 3.71

2008 2.00 3.11 6.23 17.63 4.08

Maximum Fishing Freight Passenger Tank Towing

2005 8 34 25 30 25

2006 5 31 11 26 21

2007 3 33 10 28 31

2008 6 33 23 24 22

Duration of time in port

The majority of tank ships left port in less than 24 hours (61%-86%). The number of arrivals staying in

port 24-48 hours decreased to 10-31% of the arrivals (Table 3). Th e number of tank ship arrivals

staying in port continued to decrease as time incr eased. There was a dramatic drop in total tank ship

arrivals in 2006, mostly in the 24-48 hours category (Table 3).

Almost all passenger vessels over the course of the study left port in le ss than 24 hours (89%-99%)

(Table 3).

The majority of freight ships left port in less th an 24 hours (69%-84%) (Table 3). The number of freight

vessels remaining in port was relatively low for the other time categories, but increased slightly in the

>72 hour category (12%-20%).

The majority of towing vessels left port in less than 24 hours (74%-90%) (Table 3).

In 2005 and 2006, the majority of fishing boats left port in less than 24 hours, but the number dropped

sharply in 2007 and 2008 (76%-30%) (Table 3). The number of fishing boats remaining in port was

relatively low for the other time categories, exce pt in 2007 and 2008, when a large portion of fishing

boats stayed in port longer than 72 hours (Table 3).

Vessels staying in port more than 72 hours were co mprised mainly of tank ships in 2005 (Table 3,27 Figure 12). In 2006, this category was made up of mostly passenger vessels. In 2007 and 2008, fishing

vessels had the greatest number of arrivals staying more than 72 hours. Freight ships had the most

consistent among-year numbers of a rrivals staying mo re than 72 hours.

Table 3. Duration in port (hours) of arrivals to Alaskan ports of interest 2005-2008 by vessel type.

2005 Fishing Freight Passenger Othe r Tank Towing Total Result

0-24 25 78 177 0 239 53 572

24-48 2 1 3 0 121 4 131

48-72 2 3 1 0 19 0 25

>72 5 11 3 1 14 2 36

2006 Fishing Freight Passenger Othe r Tank Towing Total Result

0-24 28 40 116 0 264 39 487

24-48 3 4 1 1 33 6 48

48-72 1 1 1 0 7 1 11

>72 5 6 12 4 3 0 30

2007 Fishing Freight Passenger Othe r Tank Towing Total Result

0-24 15 43 116 1 243 37 455

24-48 3 0 2 1 41 6 53

48-72 0 4 0 1 11 1 17

>72 12 9 1 0 5 4 31

2008 Fishing Freight Passenger Othe r Tank Towing Total Result

0-24 7 40 136 0 239 34 456

24-48 5 0 1 1 29 8 44

48-72 1 2 0 1 3 2 9

>72 16 12 0 4 6 1 3928 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Fishing Freight Passenger Other Tank Towing

Ship TypeArrivals 

## 2005

2006

2007

2008

Figure 12. The number of arrivals of each vessel type staying in port more than 72 hours, for vessels entering Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008.

Voyage types by vessel type

Total west coast voyages (combining west coast a nd west coast-domestic voyages) accounted for the

majority of tank, passenger, and towing vessel ar rivals (Table 4, Figure 13). Domestic voyages

accounted for the majority of freight and fishing vessel arrivals. Total tran spacific voyages accounted

for the majority of ‘other’ types of vessels, although most of the transpacific voyages occurred in

passenger, tank and freight vessels. (See Appendix Table 4 for yearly counts).

Table 4. Average number of each voyage type by vessel t ype, for arrivals to Alaskan ports of interest 2005-2008. Transp = transpacific voyages, WC = voya ges from the west coast of North America, excluding domestic voyages.
Other Fishing Freight Passenger Tank Ship Towing Total

Domestic 0 24.75 39.75 16.25 15.25 7.5 103.5

Other 0.5 0 0.25 1.5 0.25 0.75 3.25
Total Transp 2.75 0.25 11.5 16.75 14 1.5 46.75

Total WC 1.25 16.25 11.25 110.5 292 45.25 476.529 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other Fishing

Boat Freight Ship Passenger Tank Ship Towing

vessel Grand

Total

Vessel TypeArrivals 

### Total West Coast

Domestic
Total Transpacific

Other

Figure 13. Percent composition of voyage types by ve ssel type, for vessels entering Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008.

Voyage history by vessel type

Vessels that had stopped in the PNW accounted for the greatest portion of arrivals in all vessel types.

The next highest contributors to total arrivals were vessels that had stopped in the San Francisco Bay

area, and these vessels were almost exclusively tank ships. Vessels stopping in the Southern California

region were the third highest contributors to total arri vals, and these also occurred almost exclusively in

tank ships. Vessels stopping in Asia, Mexico and ‘o ther’ regions contributed only a small fraction to

total arrivals. Vessels from Asia were mostly frei ght, passenger and tank vessels and those from Mexico

were mostly passenger vessels. Vessels from ‘other’ regions were mostly passenger and freight vessels

(Table 5, Figure 14). (See Appendix Table 5 for yearly counts).30 Table 5. Average numbers of each voyage history type for arrivals to Alaskan ports of interest 2005- 2008 by vessel type. NW = Pacific northwest of Unite d States + British Columbia, SF = San Francisco Bay area, S. CA = southern California.

Fishing Freight Passenger Tank Towing Other Total

Asia 0.25 11.5 11.25 9 0.5 1.5 34

NW 12.5 13.5 125.75 269 47 1.75 469.5

SF 0.25 0 1.25 163 0.5 0 165

S. CA 0 0.5 1.5 98.25 0 0.5 100.75

South Pacific 0.25 1.5 7.25 6.5 1.25 2.25 19

Other 0.25 2.75 6.75 0.25 2 1.5 13.5

Mexico 0 0.75 21 0.25 0.75 1.25 24

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fi

s hing

F reig ht

P as

senger Tank

T owing Other

Ship TypeArrivals 

### Mexico Other South Pacific S. CA SF NW Asia

Figure 14. Percent composition of voyage histories by ve ssel type, for vessels entering Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008. NW = Pacific northwest of United States + British Columbia, SF = San Francisco Bay area, S. CA = southern California.



### Conclusions

The most striking observation of this study is the large drop in all types of vessel arrivals to all ports of

interest in 2006, except for fishing boats and the port of Prince William Sound (No port given). These

two categories of arrivals remained at similar levels through the study period. The only total arrival

category showing increase in arrivals from 2005- 2008 was the port of Seward, and the increase was

small. The ports of Cape Hinchinbrook, College Fjord, Cordova, Kodiak, Valdez and Tatilek all

experienced decreasing arrivals fr om 2005-2008, as have the ship cate gories of freight, passenger, tank

and towing vessels. The largest decreases were in tank ship arrivals to the port of Valdez.31 The largest drop in tank ship arri vals occurred in 2006, which was acc ompanied by a decrease in tank

ship repeat visits. It is possibl e that in 2006 there was the same number of tank ships as in 2005, but

making fewer visits. In 2007, it appear s that the tank ships returned to a normal visitation schedule,

though arrival numbers continued to shrink. This continued shrinking ma y be due to a decline in the

number of different tank ships operating within th e area. A similar story may account for the case of

freight ships as well.

It should also be noted that the number of fishing ve ssel arrivals may be artificially low, due to the

absence of SANS data for vessels weighing less than 300 gross tons. Small vessels may play an

important role as vectors of hull fouling, but poor documentation makes their relative importance

difficult to quantify. Some fishing vessel arrival information may be obtained from catch reports and by

requesting documents from individual harbormasters, but this would be difficult and labor-intensive.

Similarly undocumented in the SANS data are privat ely owned recreational vesse ls weighing less than

300 gross tons. Floerl (2002) noted th e high potential for recreational vehicles to act as fouling vectors,

since such vessels typically have long harbor re sidency times, and because there is less financial

incentive to regularly clean underwat er surfaces and maintain the anti -fouling paint. Out of 70 private

vessels surveyed in the 2002 study, 38% had over 75% of their hulls fouled (Floerl 2002). While it is

known that many fishing and private vessels travel to Alaska from other US west coast ports, further

study is needed to assess the potential risks posed by these vessels.

Risk based on visitation patterns (time in port vs frequency)

There appears to be an inverse relationship between the amount of time spent in port by a vessel, and

the frequency of that vessel’s retu rn. This is indicative of two categories of vessels: those that have set

routes and make numerous brief retu rn trips to the same port, and thos e that return to port infrequently

but stay in port for long periods of time. The first type presents a ri sk of repeat inoculations of NIS

(potential high propagule frequency), and the second represents risk based on less frequent potential

inoculations with longer “incubation” time for NIS to release nu merous propagules (potential high

propagule volume).

Tank ships and passenger vessels represent the high fr equency risk category. Tank ships had by far the

highest average return frequencies, but also had very low times spent in-port (up to 96% of all tank

ships left port in less than 48 hours and up to 86% left port in under 24 hours) . Passenger vessels had32 high average return frequencies and low times spent in port (up to 99% of a ll passenger vessels leave

port in less than 24 hours). Thus, these two vessel t ypes represent relatively hi gh risk based on potential

frequency of inoculation and rela tively low risk based on potential per-vessel volume of inoculation.

Another risk factor for th ese two vessel types is that they are most often from west coast/west coastdomestic voyages. These types of voyages are shorter than transpacif ic voyages, with shorter exposure

to oligotrophic, open ocean water that may be detrimen tal to coastal fouling orga nisms. Most tank ship

arrivals have originated or st opped in Southern California, the San Francisco Bay area, or Puget

Sound—which are among the most heavily NIS-invaded regions on the west coast of the United States

(Cohen and Carlton 1995, Wonham and Carlton 2005, Cohen et al. 2005). Many passenger vessels

arriving in Alaska had stops in Mexico and Asia, as well as the South Pacific and ‘other’ regions—

Asia, in particular has been the s ource of most of the a quatic invasive species in the northeast Pacific

(Wonham and Carlton 2005). While passenger vessels and tank ships generally maintain their hulls in

such a fashion as to minimize fouling, the sheer nu mbers of these vessels re peatedly arriving to the

Prince William Sound region greatly increases the possibility of accidental introduction.

Freight and fishing vessel s represent the high propagule volume risk category, in having relatively

irregular but long visits to Alaska n ports. Fishing boats had the lowe st average return frequency, and

over the course of the study thei r time spent in port changed dramatically. In 2005 and 2006 the

majority (76% in 2006) of fishing boat arrivals st ayed in port for less than 24 hours, but by 2007 this

had dropped to only 50%. 2008 saw the majority of fish ing boat arrivals staying in port for longer than

72 hours (74% in 2008). Freight ships also had a low average return frequency (though the average is

skewed upward by one ship, which returned to Kodi ak over 30 times per year). While total freight

vessel arrivals decreased over time, the number of vessels staying over 72 h ours did not change. For

vessels that stayed in port longer than 72 hours, freight ships had th e consistently highest numbers, and

fishing boats had the most rapidly growing numbers. Arrivals from th ese types of vessels were most

often from domestic voyages, and repr esent a relatively low risk of in troducing new NIS. However, in

the future they may act as vectors for secondary introductions by transporti ng previously introduced

species from one Alaskan port to another. Also, ma ny freight ships previously stopped in Asian ports

before coming to Alaska and could repres ent a source of NIS from that region.

Towing vessels generally did not fall into either risk category. On one hand, towing vessels did not

have a high average return frequency, though the av erage was skewed upward by one vessel that visited

over 20 times per year. On the other hand, up to 97% of all towing vessels leav e port in under 48 hours33 (up to 90% in under 24 hours). Towing vessel arriva ls are most often from west coast/west coastdomestic voyages, which as previously stated, may experience higher organism survival rates. Also

many towing vessels stopped in the Southern California and San Franci sco regions that have extensive

invasive fouling communities. Another factor that s hould be considered is th at towing vessels usually

travel at slower speeds than other vessel types, which may reduce the mortality of fouling organisms

while underway. They may also haul barges that contain a high density of fouling organisms, though

there is no data available as to what percen tage of towing vessels are hauling barges.

Risk based on port

The threat of invasion is not uniform for all ports due to the varying composition of arrivals to each

port of interest, and the different risks posed by each vessel type as discussed above. Of the nine ports

of interest, Valdez, Whittier, Seward and Kodiak have the highest potenti al risk for NIS being

introduced from hull fouling.

The risk posed to Valdez comes from the large volu me of traffic from San Francisco Bay, Southern

California, and the Puget Sound. Valdez traffic is com posed almost exclusively of tank ships, which

have an accumulated risk associated with them fr om repeat inoculations. While tank ship operators

maintain clean hulls to reduce drag and cut fuel costs, 'functionally clean' may not translate into

ecologically clean. Small communities of fouli ng organisms may persist in sea-chests, around

propellers and other complex areas of the hull. Furthermore, the rep eat inoculations may occur across

an array of weather conditions and seasons, thus increasing the likelihoo d of an introduction in ‘ideal’

conditions.

Whittier is at risk from the high volume of passenger vessel and towing vessel traffic from the PNW.

Vessels arriving from the PNW ma y experience higher fouling surviv al rates due to shorter voyage

durations, and fewer changes in the physical environment. Towing vessels may also have higher

survival rates from because of slow average voy age speeds and from hauling possibly contaminated

barges. A relatively large proportion of passenger vessel arrivals have also stopped in Mexico and a

variety of transpacific locations th at may be sources of NIS; they occur in the summer months when

propagule pressure is generally hi ghest; and the high return rate of the vessels allows for potential

repeat inoculations across a variety of conditions.34 Seward, like Whittier, is at risk from passenger vessels arriving from west coast and transpacific

voyages. The majority of passenger vessels arri ving to Seward come via the PNW and a large

proportion of these vessels have al so stopped in Asia and/or Mexi co. Passenger vessels from these

regions, as discussed above are a risk for primary introductions from repeat inoculations.

Domestic freight ships and fishing boats may presen t a risk to the port of Kodiak from secondary

invasion by already introduced NIS arriving from other Alaskan ports. Wasson et al (2001) found that

regional traffic was a significant vector for seco ndary invasions to non-comme rcial harbors. It was

concluded that reside nt fishing boats and pleasure crafts act as ‘stepping stones’ for exotic species to

spread out of San Francisco Bay into nearby regions . In Kodiak, the long “res idence time” of fishing

boats and freight ships may allow for the accumulati on of extensive fouling communities, or allow preexisting fouling to release large numbers of propa gules into the surrounding port waters. Additionally,

freight ship arrivals from transpac ific and west coast voyages to Kodiak may also present some risk of

primary NIS introductions.35 

## Hull Maintenance

Hull Maintenance Overview

Currently, there is little regul ation regarding hull husbandry pract ices. Section 2.2.23 of the EPA’s

Vessel General Permit includes the most specific requirements:

“Vessel owner/operators must minimize the transport of attached living organisms

when they travel into U.S. waters from outside the U.S. economic zone or when

traveling between COTP zones.

Whenever possible, rigorous hul l-cleaning activities should take place in drydock, or

another land-based facility where the re moval of fouling organisms or spent

antifouling coatings paint can be contained. If water-pressure based systems are used

to clean the hull and remove old paint, use fa cilities which treat the wash water prior

to discharge to remove the antifouling com pound(s) and fouling growth from the wash

water.

Vessel owner/operators who remove fouling or ganisms from hulls while the vessel is

waterborne must employ me thods that minimize the di scharge of fouling organisms

and antifouling hull coatings...”

Any non-compliance with the requirements of the VGP constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act.

For discharges incidental to normal operations (i.e. discharges that are not ballast), the Vessel General

Permit (VGP) applies to non-recreati onal vessels 79 feet or longer, w ith the exemption of commercial

fishing vessels. The exemption of fishing vesse ls in ship husbandry requirements may pose a

significant risk to the ports of Alaska, where co mmercial fishing is prevalent and economically

important. Numerous domestic and west coast fishing vessels arrive to and fr om Alaskan ports each

year, though due to poor documentation it is difficult to quantify the potential risk.

The issue of hull fouling is also addressed briefly in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part

151, which concerns vessels carrying oil, noxious liqui d substances, garbage, municipal or commercial

waste, and ballast water. Two lines that are in sub-section 2035, concerning required ballast water

management practices, cover a commercial ship ’s responsibility regarding hull fouling:36 (5) Rinse anchors and anchor chains when you retrieve the anchor to remove

organisms and sediments at their place of origin.

(6) Remove fouling organisms from hull, piping, and tanks on a regular basis and

dispose of any removed substances in accordance with local, State and Federal

regulations.

According to 33 CFR 151.2007, any violation of this s ub-part is subject to a civil penalty of up to

$27,500 per day of continuing violation, and any person who knowingly violates this sub-part is guilty

of a class C felony (Showalter and Savarese 2004) . However, the regulations go on in 33 CFR 151.2010

to exempt certain vessels from the required ballast water practices:

Two types of vessels are exempt from the requirements in §§151.2035, 151.2040,

and 151.2045:

(1) A crude oil tanker engage d in the coastwise trade.

(2) A Department of Defense or Coast G uard vessel subject to the requirements

of section 1103 of the Act, or any vessel of the Armed Forces, as defined in the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U .S.C. 1322(a)) that is subject to the

“Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces” (33

U.S.C. 1322(n)).

This exemption covers the majority of tank ships th at travel to and from Alaska. However, tank ship

companies conduct voluntary hull maintenance operat ions, generally in conjunction with regular dry

dock inspections mandated by Merchant Class Societ ies such as the Intern ational Association of

Classification Societies, Ltd (IACS), and the US Co ast Guard. These two enti ties typically require at

least one dry dock inspection of a ship's hull ever y five years (Takata et al 2006). Depending on the

classification and age of the ship, dry dock inspections sometimes occur twice every five years (IACS

REC 076, 088, 096). While these inspect ions are largely only for struct ural and safety purposes, vessel

operators generally use the opportunity to clean th e hull and re-apply anti-f ouling paint as needed.

Because extensive fouling may reduce the fuel efficien cy of a vessel, operators may also sometimes opt

to conduct interim in-water cleanings between required five year dry dock inspections (Takata et al

2006). It should be noted that the vessel operators clean hulls based on functiona l necessity rather than37 environmental reasons; as such, a level of fouling th at does not interfere with ship operations may be

allowed to persist. Tank ships that operate in Prince William Sound are generally cleaned by high water

pressure washing on dry dock at least once ev ery five years (Takat a et al 2006, Personal

Communication).



### Hull Maintenance Procedure

Hull maintenance operations in a dry dock facility ar e usually conducted in a similar manner. For large

vessels such as tank ships, the sh ip is maneuvered through gates into an enclosed dock. The dock gates

are then shut, and the water slowly drained. In smalle r vessels, the ship may be physically lifted from

the water to the work area. In either case, blocks are placed on either side of the hull to support the

vessel while it is out of the water. The vessel is then bl asted with a high pressure wash (3000-8000 psi)

to remove fouling organisms, before being assess ed for damage and paint wear. Often, the operators

opt for a full or partial reapplication of the anti-fouli ng paint. It is important to note that the areas that

are covered by the hull suppor ts cannot be painted, creating the possi bility that certain areas of the hull

go up to ten years without a fresh ap plication of paint, which may decr ease the anti-fou ling properties

of those areas (Davidson et al 2006c, Takata et al 2006).

In-water cleanings are performed by divers eith er manually scraping and suctioning fouling off the

hull, or by using mechanical brush systems such as the Submerged Cleaning and Maintenance Platform

(SCAMP). While the SCAMP and other systems provi de prevention against detritus falling to the seafloor, the effectiveness of containment is variab le. In addition, many in-water cleanings on smaller

vessels provide no containment at all, allowing fou ling organisms to escape to the surrounding water or

sink to the bottom. Floerl et al (2005) found that while in -water cleanings may mi nimize fouling in the

short term, it poses a large biosecurity risk, a nd may actually encourage the spread of fouling

organisms if the effluent is not properly contained.



### Anti-Fouling Systems

Until recently, and for the last 30 years, the most commonly applied anti-fouling paints contained

tributyl tin (TBT), a highly effective biocidal agen t. However, findings that linked TBT leaching from

ship hulls to a number of negative ecological conseque nces led to a ban of TBT use in the United States

in 1988, followed by a global phase-out and world wide ban in January 2008 by the International

Maritime Organization (Takata et al 2006, Davidson et al 2006c, Showalter & Savarese 2004, Savarese38 2005). Other kinds of anti-fouling paints have sin ce been introduced as replacements, though they are

generally considered less effective. The paints are divided into two main categ ories: TBT-free biocidal

paints that utilize zinc or copper, and silicon ba sed non-biocidal pa ints that are extremely smooth. In

the first category, the paints simply replace TBT with copper or zinc as the active ingredient. In the

latter category, the slippery silicon based paints make it difficult for organisms to adhere to the surface,

especially while underway (Takata et al 2006).

Vessels also often have specialized Marine Growth Protection System s (MGPS) installed in their seachests. The primary purpose of a MGPS is to elimin ate biofouling in seawater circulation systems.

Through the use of strategically placed anodes and cat hodes, in-coming seawater is electrolyzed with

either copper or hypochlorite ions, depending on th e manufacturer (ClearFlo System Operation, Wilson

Walton; Sanilec, Severn Trent De Nora). The resulting solutions pr ovide an inhospitable environment

for fouling organisms. MGPS may be essential tr eatments for NIS, because sea chests can host

aggregations of fouling organisms: within a single sea- chest Coutts et al ( 2003) found not only typical

fouling organisms, but also such surprising finds as the introduced European clam ( Corbula gibba ),

and three introduced Green crabs ( Carcinus maenas ), two of which were ovigerous females capable of

releasing viable propagules. The sa me paper also mentions that the unique habitat provided by a seachest has yielded an invasive sea-star, Asterias amurensis , and several species of sm all fish. In a later

paper, Coutts & Dodgshun (2007) found that whil e MGPS systems significantly reduce fouling by

sessile and sedentary organisms, the systems have little influence on the occu rrence of mobile species

within sea-chests; therefore, MGPS may reduce, but not eliminate entirely, the risk of sea-chests as

vectors for introductions.



### Hot Spots

Because a vessel's hull is not uniform, hull fouling doe s not occur evenly. Areas that have either higher

complexity like heterogeneous surfaces or areas of uneven paint, or areas of low water velocity create

conditions that encourage fouling organisms. These areas include sheltered areas around the propellers,

bilge keels, rudders, bow thrusters, intake pumps, and sea chests, and also the dry docking support

strips and waterlines where anti-foul ing paint is applied irregularly (C outts et al 2003; Coutts & Taylor

2004; Davidson et al 2006c). In vessel s that travel at high speeds (above 15 kt) very little fouling is

observed on the laminar parts of th e hull, but fouling may still pers ist in the areas mentioned above

where organisms can be shielded from strong shearing fo rces. In vessels that trav el slower than 10 kt,39 there is a greater incidence of f ouling organisms surviving on all pa rts of the hull (Takata et al 2006,

Davidson et al 2006).



### Other Risk Factors

Besides hull complexity, vessel speed, and the condition of anti-fouling paint, ot her factors contribute

to the level of fouling found on a ship’s hull. Vess els that experience rapid and drastic changes in

salinity and temperature, such as those that pass through both marine and fresh water or conduct transequatorial voyages may experience reduced survivorship of fouling organisms by subjecting them to a

range of conditions outside their phy siological limits (Davidson et al 2006c, Takata et al 2006). On the

other hand, Coutts & Taylor (2004 ) found that vessels that travel through similar latitudes may

experience increased survivorship of fouling organisms by retaining re latively consistent temperature

and salinity levels. Shorter voyages may also be bene ficial to coastal fouling organisms, because they

would be exposed for a shorter time to oceanic cond itions before arriving at port. A combination of

these two factors may mean that th ere is a higher risk of secondary contamination of Alaskan waters

from vessels traveling on coast- wise voyages (e.g., from Puget Sound or San Francisco Bay) than of

primary contamination from vessels traveling from mo re exotic locations. Travel ing to a wide range of

locations may also be a risk factor because it increa ses the odds that an organi sm with a broad range of

tolerances will attach to the hull.

Furthermore, in addition to voyage routes, inva sion risk may be influenced by the organisms

encountered in each port. A number of fouling organi sms have been introduced far outside their places

of origin, and are becoming pandemic. In these cases, the rate of new introduc tions is accelerating, in

part due to increasing sources for secondary introductions, and the spread of phys iologically tolerant

NIS (Cohen & Carlton 1998). Secondar y introduction poses a risk to Al aska from domestic and coastwise ports where introduced species have already demonstrated an ability to successfully invade. For

an index of invasive species and the regions they have been recorded in, see Appendix Table 6.

The level of fouling accumulated is related to the amount of time a vessel has spent in port. Because

larval settlement may be prevented by speeds as slow as 2 KTS (Davidson et al 2006c), accumulation

occurs while a vessel is docked, and increases over time. This is especially true in protected ports with

restricted flow and poor flushing where propagules may be retained in the water column for long

periods of time (Takata et al 2006). Due to repro ductive periodicity of fouling organisms, propagule

amounts can vary by season, with summer and spring typically having higher propagule numbers than40 winter and fall (Davidson et al 2006c).

Perhaps the most important factor contributing to f ouling on hulls in the amount of time passed since

the last hull cleaning. C outts and Taylor (2004) hypothesized that the relatively high levels of fouling

they observed in archived maintenance videos was b ecause the vessels sampled we re all near the end of

their maintenance cycles. Ruiz et al. (2000) samp led the fouling communities of two tank ships: one

had not been cleaned in dry dock for approximately 2 years; one had been cleaned in dry dock within

about 6 months. The two ships exhibited extremes in the quantity and diversity of organisms: the ship

that had not been cleaned in appr oximately 2 years had an extensive fouling community, with abundant

mussels and associated worms, crustaceans, and sedi ments (including one NIS), while the ship that had

been cleaned recently had few mainly present in the sea chest.



### Example Hull Mainten ance Schedules

Detailed maintenance information was obtained fo r 18 of the 26 tank ships known to operate within

Prince William Sound from 2005 to 2008. This information was acquired through the California

Marine Invasives Program at th e California State Lands Commission. Since January 2008, the CSLC

has maintained an extensive database of the maintena nce histories of vessels ar riving to California. The

data presented here represents a small subset of to tal vessels within that da tabase, including those tank

ships within our study that have be en to California since the Marine Invasives Program began (Table

6).

The CSLC obtains the information from the maritime industry by providing comprehensive reporting

forms. The vessel operators must complete and subm it the form within 60 days of receiving a request

from the commission. Among the information included in the data:

1. Dates and location of last out of water maintenance.

2. Date of last full or partial co at of anti-fouling paint applicat ion, type of biocide used, and

locations of the hull where applied.

3. Whether Marine Growth Protection Systems have been installed in the sea-chests.

4. Dates of in water cleaning, if applicable.

5. Whether the vessel has, since the last cleaning: recently visited freshwater or tropical areas,

been through the Panama Canal, or stayed ten consecutive days in a single port.41 Furthermore, several shipping companies known to operate within Prince William Sound were

contacted directly and interviewe d regarding their maintenance policies. Alaska Tanker Company,

SeaRiver Maritime Inc, Polar Tankers and Seabulk Ta nkers Inc are responsible for the majority of tank

ship traffic arriving to Prince William Sound. Of thes e four, only SeaRiver Maritime Inc could not be

successfully reached; however, sufficient data re garding SeaRiver Maritime’s maintenance practices

was obtained from the CSLC database.

All of the shipping companies in terviewed reported conducting hull cl eanings with a high pressure

wash on dry dock at least once every five years. Of the 18 vessels, the greates t duration of time since

last maintenance or build was five years, and the average time since last main tenance or build was two

years (Table 6). As noted in the sections above, two years is en ough time for extensive fouling to

accumulate (Ruiz et al 2000). Only two vessels unde rwent in-water cleanings since the last reported

drydock. The majority of the vessels had Marine Gr owth Protection Systems in stalled in sea-chests,

and also had a full coat of anti-fouling paint reap plied at the last drydocked maintenance (Table 6).

However, many of the vessels did not paint non-hull surf aces such as thrusters and rope guards, or the

previous dry dock support strips (For specific areas of the hull painted and the type of paint used, see

Appendix Table 7). As discussed ear lier, these areas may act as refuges for small groups of fouling

organisms. Furthermore, many ve ssels spent over 10 consecutive da ys in a single port, thereby

increasing the risk of fouling accumulation. The por ts where the 10+ day stays occurred are places

where NIS are known to be established. The majority of vessels rarely visite d tropical ports or the

Panama Canal, and are therefore less likely to tran sport invasive species from these areas. Only three

vessels have regularly visited freshw ater ports, and are likely to have significantly less fouling due to

the rapid salinity changes (Table 6). As a whole, the 18 vessels may present risk associated with

secondary introductions, by carry ing fouling organisms on irre gularly painted surfaces.42Table 6. Hull maintenance of tank ships operating in Alaskan ports of interestReportYear Vessel NameVesselDelivery DateOut OfWaterMaintenanceDateOut OfWaterMaintenanceCountryIn WaterCleaningDateYears sincemaintenanceor delivery Coating LevelLast FullCoat DateSeaChestsMGPSInstalled?Days inFW PortVisitsince lastcleaningDays inTropicalPort Visitsince lastcleaningDays inPanamaCanalVisitsince lastcleaning?Ten DayStay sincelastcleaning?Days InPortTen Day StayPort2008 ALASKAN EXPLORER 21-Mar-053 Full Coat AppliedYY11 LA-LB2009 ALASKAN EXPLORER 21-Mar-054 Full Coat AppliedYY27 Port Angeles2008 ALASKAN FRONTIER 11-Aug-044 Full Coat AppliedY1Y14 PORTLAND2009 ALASKAN FRONTIER 11-Aug-045 Full Coat AppliedY1Y21 Puget Sound2008 ALASKAN LEGEND 18-Aug-062 Full Coat AppliedY1Y21 Port Angeles2009 ALASKAN LEGEND 18-Aug-063 Full Coat AppliedY1Y21 Port Angeles2008 ALASKAN NAVIGATOR 23-Nov-053 Full Coat AppliedY1Y14 Port Angeles2009 ALASKAN NAVIGATOR 23-Nov-054 Full Coat AppliedY1Y30 PORTLAND2009 CAPTAIN H. A. DOWNING23-Sep-06 Canada3 Full Coat AppliedN26 20Y13SanFrancisco2008 KODIAK16-Nov-05 Singapore3 Full Coat AppliedYN2009 KODIAK16-Apr-08 USA0 Full Coat AppliedYN2008 MISSISSIPPI VOYAGER01-Mar-07 USA1 Full Coat Applied3 3Y17SanFrancisco2009 MISSISSIPPI VOYAGER12-Sep-09 USA0 Full Coat Applied1N2009 OVERSEAS NEW YORK 11-Apr-081 Full Coat AppliedY26 1 1 N2008 POLAR ADVENTURE 01-Sep-044 Full Coat AppliedN2008 POLAR DISCOVERY01-Jun-06 Singapore NA2 Full Coat AppliedN2009 POLAR DISCOVERY01-Jun-06 Singapore 10-Oct-06 3 Full Coat AppliedY9 1Y20Port Angeles2008 POLAR ENDEAVOUR01-Jun-04 Singapore4 Full Coat AppliedN2009 POLAR ENDEAVOUR21-Aug-09 Singapore 7-Dec-08 0 Partial Coat 21-May-09 YN2008 POLAR ENTERPRISE 01-Jan-062 Full Coat AppliedN2009 POLAR ENTERPRISE23-Oct-06 Spain3 Full Coat AppliedY1 1Y27 Portland2008 POLAR RESOLUTION1-Aug-05 Singapore3 Full Coat AppliedYY43Port Angeles2009 POLAR RESOLUTION3-Aug-05 Singapore4 Full Coat AppliedNY26Port Angeles2008 S/RBAYTOWN07-Sep-06 Singapore2 Full Coat AppliedY1 1 1 Y30PORTLAND2009 S/RBAYTOWN25-Aug-06 Singapore3 Full Coat AppliedY392 Y13.94Houston2008 S/R LONGBEACH15-May-07 Singapore1 Full Coat AppliedY2N2009 S/R LONGBEACH15-May-07 Singapore1 Full Coat AppliedY1N2008SEABULK ARCTIC29-Aug-06 Panama2 Full Coat Applied4 1Y10Cook Inlet2009SEABULK ARCTIC07-Jul-08 Singapore1 Full Coat AppliedN1N2008SEABULK PRIDE27-Feb-06 USA2 Full Coat AppliedN2 1N2009SEABULK PRIDE12-Sep-08 Singapore1 Full Coat AppliedN1N2008 SIERRA24-Jul-06 Singapore2 Full Coat AppliedYN2009 SIERRA18-Dec-08 Singapore0 Full Coat AppliedY1N43 

## Hull fouling sampling methods and recommendations

Introduction

Studies of biofouling on ship’s hulls have em ployed various sampling and analysis techniques

(summarized in Table 7). However, aside from Da vidson et al. (2006b), ther e are few studies that

evaluate and compare the efficiency and effectivene ss of several techniques. Four techniques have been

commonly used to sample hulls: (1) using divers to collect specimens and conduct underwater photo

quadrats; (2) collecting specimens and photo quadrats immediately af ter a vessel has been drydocked;

(3) using archival video footage of under water in lieu of Drydock (UWILD) in spections; and (4) using

remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) to conduct video tran sects. By utilizing exis ting literature and prior

experiences, Davidson et al (2006b) qualitatively assessed these f our techniques for strengths and

weaknesses across ten criteria. Th ese criteria included: represen tativeness of vessel population;

representativeness of vessel arriva ls to a specific port; possible c onstraints on measuring biofouling

extent; possible constraints on m easuring species composition; possi ble constraints on measuring

viability; possible constraints on accessing sea-chests; av ailability of vessel history; access to vessels;

sampling duration; and cost. Of the ten criteria Davidson et al. (2006b) used, we will summarize those

likely to be most relevant to this study: (1) cost; (2) representativen ess of sampling; and (3) type and

quality of data obtained.



### Methods

Visual Rank Assessment

A rank scale of fouling intensity has been de veloped and used along with hull maintenance

questionnaires to evaluate fouling on smaller vessel s such as pleasure yachts (Floerl et al. 2002, 2005,

Ashton et al. 2006). The scale is based on approxim ate percentage cover on hull surfaces visible from

the surface and number of differen t identifiable taxa of marine i nvertebrates and plants comprising

fouling assemblages and ranges from 0 (no fouling) to 5 (very heavy fouling). This type of assessment

may be useful in broadly evaluati ng fouling and risk patterns asso ciated with smaller vessels (e.g.,

recreational and fishing boats) entering Alaska.



### Diving

Divers have been used in a number of st udies to conduct survey s (Cohen et al. 1998, 2001, 2002,

2005a, 2005b; Godwin 2003; Mineur et al. 2007; Ruiz and Smith 2005; Davidson et al 2006c). Many44 of these studies have been cursory, noting only presence-absence (e.g., Cohen et al. references cited

above) or focused on individual taxa or groups (e.g., Mineur et al., su rveying algae on hulls). Ruiz and

Smith (2005) surveyed nine vessels over a two w eek period, in April 2004 in the Port of Oakland,

California. Divers collected biota and video data from transects along selected parts of the hull, and

obtained species presence/absence data, live/dea d data and surface area data. While they found a

notable paucity of organisms on all of the hulls inspected, only one vessel was without any visual

fouling. The extent of fouling va ried greatly from one vessel to the next, leading the authors to

conclude that further studies with larger sample sizes are needed; how ever they also observed that nonhull underwater locations were the most importa nt sites for biota abundance and diversity.



### Dry Dock

Surveys conducted on drydock have also been co nducted in a number of studies (Gollasch 2002;

Minchin and Gollasch 2003; Davidson et al 2006a; Drake and L odge 2007; Coutts et al. 2003). In the

most comprehensive of these studies, Gollasch et al. (2002) sampled vessels visiting German ports for

3 years, from 1992 to 1995. Over the course of the study, a variety of locations on 186 ships were

sampled, including 131 hull samples obtained by using scrapers immediately after a vessel was drydocked. Samples were identified and assigned to fourdifferent categories: native, established nonnative, non-established non-native, and cryptogenic. They found that 74% of all species found in hull

samples were non-native to the North Sea. Furthermor e, 96% of all samples taken included at least one

NIS. While they found that the majority of the non -native species found were from warmer climates

and therefore unlikely to become established, 22% of total non-native species found were considered to

pose a risk of successful introduction.



### Archival Video Footage

Several studies have used archival hull inspection video footage to extract fouling da ta (Coutts and

Taylor 2004; Davidson et al. 2006c). Coutts and Taylor (2004) obtained underwater video for 30

randomly selected vessels from commercial diving lib raries. Eight locations on the vessels were chosen

to investigate: the hull, propeller, bulbous bow, b ilge keel, rudder, rope guard, sea-chest grating, and

support block strips. In each of the eight locations , the video was randomly paused 5 times on as many

vessels as possible. Biofouling organisms were identif ied to broad taxa (i.e. gr een algae, brown algae)

and assigned to four categories re presenting the spectrum of fouli ng progression: A= no fouling, B=

fine algae/slime C= encrusting organisms, D= macrofauna. The study found that while 54% of the45 quadrat areas surveyed had no visi ble fouling, category B organisms were found in high concentrations

on propellers, bulbous bows, bilge keels, rudders and rope guards. The study concluded that using

video footage may be a cost effective method of assessing risk, though issues with clarity prevented

finer taxonomic resolution.



### ROV

The use of ROVs to conduct hull f ouling surveys is a relatively new technique. While it has been used

in a number of benthic habitat surveys (Pacunski et al. 2008; Parry et al. 2003; Parry et al. 2002), hull

fouling studies using ROVs are relatively rare (Dav idson et al 2009). However, the commercial use of

ROVs to inspect the hulls of sh ips for structural damage is more common in the shipping industry

(Lynn and Bolander 1999; Harris and Slate 1999), and ROV services are often offered by the

commercial dive companies that perform inspections. In one of the few hull fouling studies to make use

of ROVs, Davidson et al (2009) c onducted ROV video surveys on 13 cont ainerships docked at the Port

of Oakland in May 2006. Using a three person team to monitor and control th e ROV, the researchers

examined the hulls, rudders, propeller s and stern tubes of all vessels surv eyed over a series of transects.

Wherever possible, the team also inspected bulbous bows, bow thruster grati ngs and intake gratings.

Video was used for coarse taxonomic identification; divers were deployed on a subset of vessels to

obtain biological samples for fine r resolution. The resear chers found low levels of observable fouling

on the majority of the vessels surv eyed, and also found that rudders, bow thrusters and stern tubes were

fouled more frequently than other submerged area s. While noting that many factors play a role in

fouling accumulation, the researchers found a signifi cant positive relationship between taxa richness

and time out of dry dock.46Table 7. Hull fouling studies and methodsAuthorsNumber of shipssampled LocationTypes ofshipsTechniqueused Data Collected Species level ID?Ashton G, Boos K, Shucksmith R, Cook E (2006)866 Scotland Private YachtVisual rankassessment Percent cover, vessel history NCoutts ADM, Moore KM, Hewitt CL (2003)1Sydney,Australia PassengerDry dockcollection presence/absenceYCoutts ADM, Taylor MD (2004)30 New ZealandMerchantvesselsArchival videofootage Taxa richness, percent cover NCoutts ADM, Dodgshun TJ (2007)42 New ZealandMiscellaneouscommercialvesselsDry dockcollectionPresence/absence, vesselhistory, organism mobility, taxarichness YDavidson I, Sytsma M, Ruiz G (2006a)17ColumbiaRiver, ORMiscellaneouscommercialvesselsDry docksampling,archival videoTaxa richness, taxa density,percent cover, vessel history YDavidson I, Ruiz G, Sytsma M, Fofonoff (2006c)2Suisun Bay,CAObsoleteNationalReserveDefense FleetvesselsDiver photoquadrats,specimencollectionsSpecies richness, percentcover, species abundance YDavidson I, Brown C, Sytsma M, Ruiz G (2009)22Port ofOakland, CA container shipsDiver andROV videosurveys,limitedspecimencollectionsPresence/absence and percentcover at broad taxonomiclevels, species richness, vesselhistory YDrake JM, Lodge DM (2007)1 Lake Ontario Bulk carrierDry dockcollectionSpecies richness, taxaabundance YFarrapeira CM, de Melo AV, Barbosa DF, Silva HM (2007)32 Recife, BrazilMiscellaneouscommercialvesselsDiverspecimencollectionsPresence/absence, speciesrichness YFloerl O, Inglis GJ, Hayden BJ (2002)783 New Zealand Private yachtVisual rankassessment,videotransects Percent cover, vessel history NGodwin LS (2003)8 Oahu, HI BargesDiverspecimencollections Presence/absence YGollasch S (2002)186Germanports alongNorth SeaContainer ships,andmiscellaneouscommercialvesselsDry dockcollection Species richness YMineur F, Johnson MP, Maggs CA, Stegenga H (2007)22 Sete, FranceUnspecifiedcommercialvesselsAlgaecollectionswhilesnorkelinglPresence/absence, vesselhistory YRuiz GM, Smith G (2005)9Port ofOakland, CA container shipsDiver videosurveys andspecimencollectionsPresence/absence, percentcover, taxa richness, sizedistribution of organisms Y47 

### Pros and Cons

Cost

Using archival video footage from UWILD inspections is the least expensive option, because the video

has already been taken and the f ootage must simply be requested from the video inspection company

after obtaining permission from vessel owner/operator s. (Davidson et al 2006b). Collecting data during

a scheduled dry-docking event is al so a relatively inexpensive option. However, because tank ships in

the northeast Pacific usually drydock in Asia, costs woul d include travel to Asian drydock facilities that

service the tank ships. Smaller vessels such as fish ing boats and barges could be sampled at regional

drydock facilities. Visual rank assessment is al so relatively inexpensive, and can be conducted by

volunteers, resulting in a large amount of data (e .g., 866 vessels sampled by Ashton et al. 2006). The

use of divers and ROVs are the most expensive options, but costs may be lowered if divers are

available within the institution c onducting the sampling: ot herwise, commercial divers would have to

be contracted. ROV costs may also be mitigated by using an institution that has one or more ROVs

available or partnering with such an institution (e. g., the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

has an ROV). If a relatively long-term project is anticipated, purchase of an ROV may also be costeffective. Both drydock and diver surveys could yi eld biological samples that would require fixation,

transport, and identification by taxonomic expe rts that would add a dditional costs.



### Representativeness

To prevent bias from being introduced into the study, samples should be representative of the vessel

population being sampled. Dry-docking events and ar chived video inspections occur at regular

intervals when fouling is most likely, i.e., ever y five years for dry-docking, and once between dry

docks for underwater video inspections (Davidson et al 2006b). Sampling of vesse ls at the end of their

maintenance routines may bias studies toward the most fouled conditions, a nd should accordingly be

identified as such. On the other hand, diver and ROV surveys can be conducted at any point in a

vessel's maintenance schedule, and provide a more representative sampling regime. Visual rank

assessment is the least representative method, as it can only be conducted reliably on small vessels, and

is limited to parts of the hull that can be seen from the surface.



### Data Type and Quality

The type and quality of data obtaine d are the most important criteria when considering the overall goals48 of the study. ROVs, archival video footage, and vi sual rank assessment can pr ovide a large quantity of

data, but, because of limitations in resolution, there is a lim ited ability to interpret the information. In

this case, fouling organisms must be grouped into broad categories, acco mpanied by abundance counts

or percent cover for each category. ROV and archival video footage may be adequate at providing a

gross measure of how much fouling is present, but cannot identify all of the species present or quantify

the abundance of each species. Archival footage and vi sual rank assessments may be less effective than

ROV video because there is no control over what areas of the hull are recorded in the archived footage,

while ROV video can be taken on predetermined transect s and/or “hot spots” of interest. Thus, it would

be difficult to devise a uniform study design usi ng archival video. Diver and drydock surveys, on the

other hand, provide lower quantitie s of higher quality data. These two methods allow for sample

collection and identification of bi ota to low taxonomic levels. This information may be accompanied

by other quantitative information a bout representative sections of a given vessel hull (e.g., visual

assessments to accompany biota samples), though ga thering of such data may be limited to the

accessible parts of the hull. In the case of drydock su rveys, only certain portions of a vessel’s hull will

be accessible for collecting biological samples. Fo r example, if specimens could only be collected

from areas accessible by ladder, th e majority of the hull would not be characterized. Also, during the

dry-docking procedure, some mobile organisms associated with the fouling assemblage (e.g., copepods,

amphipods, shrimp) may leave the hull, and other or ganisms may die and begin to decompose before

sampling is conducted.

If a general measure of total am ount of hull fouling in broad taxonom ic categories is the goal, then

drydock surveys and archival video footage may be po ssible options for hull fouling surveys. However,

drydock surveys may be impractical for vessels en tering Alaska ports, because dry-docking of the

major vessel type, tankers, is done at foreign faciliti es. Archival footage is problematical because of

the potential lack of resolu tion and control over sample design, but may be useful in refining a subset

of vessels to focus higher resolu tion studies on (see recommendations section). Likewise, visual rank

assessment is useful only for identifying broad tax onomic categories on small vessels. These methods

may introduce unacceptable bias to a hull fouling study if the study goal is to assess representative

cross sections of individual hulls and/or a vess el population. The two othe r options, ROV and diver

surveys, are examined in more detail.49 

### Assessment of ROV and Diver Sampling

ROV

ROVs can provide data that is more extensive than that which can be taken within the depth, spatial,

and time limits of diver collections. While diver time underwater is limited by physiological and air

supply constraints, ROVs have no such limits and may survey the entire hull of a vessel with relative

ease. Without people in the water, sa fety restrictions are also less stri ngent, and it may be easier to

receive port and vessel permissions to conduct survey s (Davidson et al. 2006b). Effective ROV surveys

also require fewer support personnel than diving surv eys. Operation of the ROV requires at least 3

people: a pilot, someone to manage the umbilical lines, and someone to monitor the video. A diving

survey requires at least two divers , a land coordinator for safety, and if samples are collected, a team of

biologists to immediately sort and preserve specimens. For visual su rveys, ROV data appears to be

comparable to diver observations. For example, in a study of the abundances and distribution of

burrowing megafauna, Parry et al. (2002) found that there was no significan t difference in total

abundance counts between a ROV and a research dive r, and the ROV may have actually outperformed

the divers, because of the divers' tendency to overestimate the size of objects. Raw data may be

collected at speeds comparable to or exceeding that of divers, averaging between 0.14m and 0.6m per

second (Pacunski et al. 2008).

Images from ROVs may be analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively for fauna greater than 1cm in

diameter. While this may hinder the identification of small or cryptic species, larger fauna may be

readily identifiable to at least a higher taxonomic level. In the Parry et al. (2003) study, the highest

resolution of the ROV camera was 1.1mm +/- 0.1mm pe r pixel; that portion of the study was conducted

in 2001 and resolution has improved since then. A unique strength of an ROV survey is that it allows

the user to quickly generate per cent cover, species pres ence/absence and count data without any need

for rapid sample identification, pr eservation or live -dead assays.

ROVs are costly and unwieldy to use. Leasing th e equipment costs approximately $1000 per day (plus

cost of crew); purchasing a small ROV cost s between $10,000 and $100,000 dollars as a base price

(Pacunski et al. 2008 ) . Ancillary equipment, such as laser scal ing systems, navigation systems, pressure

sensors and flood lights can increase the price an additional $15,000-$150,000 (P acunski et al. 2008).

ROV technology also requires the av ailability of a skilled operato r and maintenance personnel.

Pacunski et al (2008) found that ROV technology is prone to mechan ical, electrical, and software50 problems. Furthermore, the quality of data obtained appears to be directly re lated to the experience

level of the operator, and biased estimates may result from differi ng fly-over heights or an uneven

attitude towards the study surface (Pac unski et al 2008, Parry et al 2003).



### Diver Surveys

Because of the combination of ma neuverability and physical access, divers can deliver the highest

resolution data in a variety of c onditions. While ROVs are limited in feature dense or topographically

complex areas of the hull, divers have the flexibility to access and collect from most areas of the hull,

and to pinpoint and sample areas of special interest, such as sea-chests. Divers can also collect dense

multi-layered organism assemblages and return samples to the surface where all the layers can be

analyzed. Once brought to the surface and sorted, the sample can be iden tified to the species level for

all taxa, including smaller mobile epifauna such as copepods and am phipods, and even for microscopic

organisms. Organism viability (i.e. live/dead status) can be assessed either on si te by divers or shortly

after reaching the surf ace, which is not possible for ROV sample s except in the most obvious cases.

Diver surveys may be conducted in several ways. Godw in (2003) surveyed hulls using two divers that

swam bow to stern on either side of a vessel, sampling each type of organism seen. Davidson et al

(2006c) used a combination of randomized photo-qua drats and sample collections, with the surface

team directing the divers via real-time audio and vi deo feeds. Ruiz et al. (2005) surveyed in a nonrandom manner using divers with real-time audio and video feeds to the su rface team, collecting all

observed organisms along a transect and gathering pres ence/absence data from vi sual scans. In all of

these cases, once samples were delivered to the su rface they were rapidly processed by a team of

biologists in a similar fashion. Sa mples were put on ice and transpor ted back to the lab for sorting

within a few hours of the original collection. Representativ e samples were then preserved and either

identified to the lowest possible taxon on site, or sent to experts for fu rther identification. The

flexibility of diver surveys to use photo quadrats, specimen collections, and video transects allows the

collection of a wide array of data including percent cover, presence/absence and abundance counts.

Dive surveys, while yielding potenti ally large amounts of usable data , require considerable logistics

before samples can be taken. Due to safety concerns , permission must be gran ted by port authorities,

terminal operators and vessel operato rs prior to the start of the survey (Davidson et al 2006b). Further,51 the vessel's in-water activities must be altered fo r the duration of the surv ey, including turning off

intake pumps, propellers, and electrolytic marine gr owth protection systems (Ruiz et al 2005). Before a

survey is scheduled, ava ilability of taxonomic expe rts will need to be arranged if immediate species

identification and live-dead assays are to be conducted. Divers are s ubject to limitations when diving.

Though depth would rarely be a concer n for the majority of vessels, lim itations such as time, air supply

and surface connections (if applicable) would requ ire several dives per surveyed vessel depending on

its size (Davidson et al 2006c), and diver endurance would also affect the amount of work that could be

conducted. This could translate into to a slower turnover time per vessel, as compared to ROV

sampling, unless a team of four or more divers were used.



### Recommendations

Analyzing shipping patterns provides an initial assessment of vessel t ypes, routes, and voyage histories

that are most likely to pose risk s of introducing hull fouling NIS. This type of analysis can also

identify individual ports that may be at more ri sk of receiving NIS. Ho wever, a more complete

understanding of NIS risk requires mo re detailed studies of the biota on vessel hulls in order to “ground

truth” the findings of the shipping pattern analys es. Because biotic surveys are labor and cost

intensive, shipping pattern analys es can help to streamline the re search by providing focal points on

which to initially concentrate effort. Also, there are se veral levels of effort that can be applied to biotic

surveys, with considerable differences in cost and quality/quantity of results. Here, referring to the

previous section on sampling methods, we outline a multi-level and iterative study design that is

intended to be cost effective and allow for continuously more focused and targeted studies

The first level is an exploratory su rvey using archival video footage of from Under Water in Lieu of

Drydock (UWILD) inspections to generate a broad understanding of the extent of fouling among

vessels visiting Alaskan ports, and further identify potential areas of NIS risk, including areas on

individual vessel hulls. The second level, which would be conducted on a narrower field of vessels,

would use ROV or diver based video surveys. This step may be bypassed depending on the quality of

data obtained in the first level. In addition, at either leve l one or two, visual ra nk assessment could be

conducted on smaller vessels to prov ide general fouling patterns for that subset of vessels. The third

level is a highly targeted series of diver based specimen collections to obtain high resolution species

data. As previously mentioned, samples could also be taken while vessels are at drydock, but this

would probably not yield representative samples, b ecause most dry-docking of larger vessels is done52 overseas.



### Level one—Archived video

For this level of study, archival UWILD video footag e from vessels that arrive to Prince William Sound

would be examined. To access these videos, permission to release the files must first be obtained from

vessel owner/operators, and then requested from the li braries of the commercial diving companies that

conducted the inspection surveys. Since the majority of vessel traffic to Prince William Sound arrives

via the Pacific Northwest, several commercial dive companies in Oregon, Washington and British

Columbia were contacted regarding their inspec tion services. These companies reported performing

inspections on a wide array of larg e vessels, including tank ships, cruise ships, bulkers, container ships,

large fishing vessels, Navy and Coast Guard vessels. Most commercial diving companies keep copies

of all inspection videos for at leas t three years, while some companies may retain copies indefinitely. If

the videos are numerous and extensive, viewing could be prioritized base d on the risk criteria identified

in the analysis of the SANS data base provided in this report. The videos may then be analyzed for

percent cover and presence/absence of organisms at broad taxonomic levels. Videos must contain

enough footage to sufficiently cove r all parts of a vessel’s underwate r surfaces. We recommend that a

set number of quadrats from still frames be conducted randomly on the hull, along with semi-random

quadrats on non-hull surfaces, if possible. Because non- hull surfaces may act as a refuge for fouling

organisms, these areas may warrant special focus. If videos are high enough quality, some quantitative

measures of biota can be made. For example, Coutts and Taylor (2004) assessed taxa richness and

percentage cover for each quadrat by estimating the size of the image, and using 50 random points

superimposed over the video monitor. Taxa richne ss and percentage cover da ta were then analyzed

using statistical methods such as general linear mi xed models, pair-wise comparisons of means, and

multivariate analyses, with “vessel type” and “hull location” as fixed factors.

The factors that should be evaluated afte r video is obtained and reviewed are:

• Is the range of vessel types and ports adequa te to answer the questions being asked?

• Is the resolution high enough to identify fouling patterns?

• Do videos of individual vessel hulls adequately cover the hull surface?

In the best case, if enough adequate footage is f ound, this level would yield information on the extent

of biofouling across a large subset of vessels ar riving to Prince William Sound. It would likely not,53 however, provide useful information on specific NIS. If the data obtained at this level is deemed

sufficient for the purposes of the st udy, the study may be restricted to only archival vi deo analysis. If

higher species resolution is desired, data from the level one archival footag e should be evaluated to

determine if it supplies enough information to detect fouling patterns associat ed with vessel types,

voyage types, etc. If such a pattern is evident and appears representative, hull fouling studies may

proceed to level three, where a smaller more fo cused study can be done by divers. If meaningful

patterns cannot be detected due to limitations of th e archived video, the study may proceed to level 2,

where directed video may be obt ained by divers or an ROV.



### Level two—ROV and diver video surveys

ROV and diver video surveys offer a step up from UWIL D video in that there is more ability to control

what is sampled. Sampling can be targeted at ports , vessel types, or voyage types of interest, and

specific areas on an individual vessel hu ll can also be targeted. At this level, researchers may use either

divers with video feeds or an ROV to conduct dir ected video surveys. The control afforded by this

method allows vessels to be directly compared in a uniform manner. We recommend the divers or ROV

perform several transects along the length of a vessel's hull, follo wed by special attention to supportblock strips and non-hull areas where fouling may accu mulate (forward of propellers, rudder, bilge

keels, sea-chest grating, etc). A r eal-time video feed may also be viewed by biologists who can identify

areas to be sampled (see level three) . During post-processing of videos taken at this level, videos can

be paused at both random points and targeted focal points to obtain percent c over and presence/absence

of organisms at broad taxonomic leve ls. This data may then be anal yzed statistically using general

linear models, multivariate analyses, pair-wise co mparisons of means (e.g., Coutts and Taylor 2004)

and analysis of similarities ( ANOSIM) (Davidson et al 2009).

Level two sampling would allow more controlled data to be gathered on the extent and location of

biofouling across a range of vesse ls, but as with level one sa mpling, would not provide much

information on specific NIS. However, the likelihood of level two sampling providing meaningful data

that would help to target level three sampling is likely higher than that obtained with level one

sampling.



### Level three—targeted biological sampling by divers

After level one and two analyses, targeted biological sampling can be conducted on vessels of interest.54 This sampling could also be done in conjunction with level two sampling, if it is conducted by divers.

This method is the most complicated with respect to access, safety, and time considerations, and is the

most labor and cost-intensive method. Thus, le vel three sampling might best be conducted by

strategically narrowing the subset of vessels to be sampled to those that are hypothesized to be high

risk vectors, as determined by le vel one and two sampling. For this level of sampling, divers would

collect representative samples of fouling observe d along transects on vessel hulls. Biofouling would

also be visually assessed as in le vel two. If budgets allow, divers coul d be connected via live video with

biologists that could direct target ed sampling. Transects could be sa ved as video files and analyzed

extensively. The samples can be rapidly assessed while alive. However, most species identifications

would be done from samples that are fi xed and sent to taxonomic experts.

Level three sampling yields high resolution information on specific fouling organisms and potential

and known NIS found in hull samples. Percent cover can also be obtained, though due to limitations in

the time divers can spend in the wate r, this data may be limited to only portions of a vessel. To analyze

species composition, a presence/absence matrix is generated using voucher specimens. Post-processing

of percent cover data is accomplished by the point count method of superimposing 100 random dots

over each quadrat. Statistical methods that can be used to analyze the species composition and

percentage cover data include univariate analysis, multivariate analysis, analysis of similarities

(ANOSIM), and an accumulation curve to provide an indication of wh ether all species present were

likely sampled (Davidson et al 2006c).55 

## References

33 C.F.R. § 151.2035(a)(5) and (6) (2009).

33 CFR 151.2010(a)(1) and (2) (2009).

33 CFR 151.2007(a)(b) (2009).

33 CFR 160 (2009).

Ashton G, Boos K, Shucksmith R, Cook E. (2006) Risk assessment of hull fouling as a vector for

marine non-natives in Scotland. A quatic Invasions. Vol 1:4 214-218.

Ashton GV, Riedlecker EI, Ruiz GM. (2008) First non -native crustacean establis hed in coastal waters of Alaska. Aquatic Biology. Vol 3:133-137.

Atlas of Exotic Species in the Mediterranean. The Medi terranean Science Commission. http://www.ciesm.org/online/atlas/index.htm

Boyd MJ, Mulligan TJ, Shaughnessy FJ. (2002) Non-indi genous species of Humboldt Bay, California. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento CA.

Cohen AN, Carlton JT. (1995) Nonindi genous aquatic species in a Unite d States estuar y: a case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Sea Grant College Program (Connecticut S ea Grant). Washington DC, Silver Spring MD.

Cohen AN, Mills C, Berry H, Wonham M, Bingha m BL, Bookheim B, Carlton JT, Chapman JW, Cordell J, Harris LH, Klinger T, Kohn A, Lambert CC, Lambert G, Li K, Secord D, Toft J.(1998) A rapid assessment survey of non-indigenous species in the shallow waters of Puget Sound. Washington State Department of Natural Resources and US Fi sh and Wildlife Service. Olympia WA, Lacey WA.

Cohen AN, Berry H, Mills C, Milne D, Britton-Simmons K, Wonham M, Secord D, Barkas J, Bingham BL, Bookheim B, Byers J, Chapman JW, Cordell J, Dumbauld B, Fukuyama A, Harris LH, Kohn A, Li K, Mumford T, Radashevsky V, Sewell A, Welch K. (2001) Washington State Exotics Expedition 2000: A rapid survey of exotic species in the shallow waters of Elliott Bay, Totten and Eld inlets, and Willapa Bay. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Olympia WA.

Cohen AN, Harris LH, Bingham BL , Carlton JT, Chapman JW, Lambert CC, Lambert G, Ljubenkov JC, Murray SN, Rao LC, Reardon K, Schwindt E. ( 2002) Project report for the Southern California exotics expedition 2000: a ra pid assessment survey of exotic sp ecies in sheltere d coastal waters. California Department of Fish and Game; State Wa ter Resource Control Board; National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/

Cohen AN (2004) An exotic species detection program for Puget Sound. Puget Sound Action Team. Olympia WA.

Cohen AN, Harris LH, Bingham BL , Carlton JT, Chapman JW, Lambert CC, Lambert G, Ljubenkov56 JC, Murray SN, Rao LC, Reardon K, Schwindt E. (2005a) Rapid Assessment survey for exotic organisms in southern California bays and har bors, and abundance in po rt and non-port areas. Biological Invasions 7: 996-1002

Cohen, A.N., D.R. Calder, J.T. Carlton, J.W. Chapma n, L.H. Harris, T. Kitayama, C.C. Lambert, G. Lambert, C. Piotrowski, M. Shouse and L.A. Soló rzano. (2005b) Rapid Assessment Shore Survey for Exotic Species in San Francisco Bay - May 2004. Final Report for the California State Coastal Conservancy, Association of Bay Area Government s/San Francisco Bay-Delta Science Consortium, National Geographic Society and Rose Foundation. Sa n Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA.

Cohen, AN. (2005c) Guide to the Exo tic Species of San Francisco Bay

. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA, www.exoticsguide.org

Coutts ADM, Moore KM, Hewitt CL (2003) Ships’ sea-chests: an overlooked transfer mechanism for non-indigenous marine species? Mar Po ll Bull 46:1504-1515

Coutts ADM, Taylor MD (2004) A prelimin ary investigation of biosecurity risks associated with biofouling on merchant vessels in New Zealand. NZ J Mar FW

Res 38: 215-229

Coutts ADM, Dodgshun TJ (2007) The nature and extent of organisms in vessel sea-chests: A protected

mechanism for marine bioinvasions. Ma rine Pollution Bulletin 54: 875-886.

Davidson I, Sytsma M, Ruiz G (2006a) Preliminary i nvestigations of biofouling of ships' hulls: Nonindigenous species investigations in the Columbia River. U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center. Groton, Connecticut.

Davidson I, Ruiz G, Sytsma M ( 2006b) Comparing methodologies for assessing vessel biofouling: dry dock, diver and ROV sampling. Califo rnia State Lands Commission.

Davidson I, Ruiz G, Sytsma M, Fofonoff. (2006c) Hull Fouling on the vessels Point Loma and Florence in the reserve fleet at Suisun Bay, CA: A pilot stu dy with respect to potent ial transfer of non-native species. US Department of Trans portation, Maritime Administration.

Davidson, Ian C., Brown, Christopher W., Sytsma, Mark D. and Ruiz, Gregory M. (2009) The role of containerships as transfer mechanisms of marine biofouling species. Biofouling, 25:7, 645 — 655

Drake JM, Lodge DM. (2007) Hull fouling is a risk factor for intercontinenta l species exchange in aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic Invasions, Vol 2, 2:121-131.

European Network on Invasive Alien Species. NOBANIS. http://www.nobanis.org/Search.asp

Farrapeira CM, de Melo AV, Barbosa DF, Silva KM. (2007) Ship hull fouling in the port of Recife, Pernambuco. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography, v55:3

Floerl O. (2002) Intracoastal spre ad of fouling organisms by recrea tional vessels. Ph.D. thesis, James Cool University, Townsville.

Floerl O, Inglis GJ (2003) Potential for the intro duction and spread of marine pests by private yachts.57 Proceedings of a workshop for marine invasive introductions. February 12-13, 2003. Honolulu, HI.

Floerl O, Inglis GJ, Hayden BJ. (2005) A risk-based predictive tool to preven t accidental in troductions of non-indigenous marine species. Environmental Management Vol. 35:6 765-778.

Floerl O, Norton N, Inglis G, Hayden B, Middleton C, Smith M, Alcock N, Fitridge I. (2008) Efficacy of hull cleaning operations in containing biological material . MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. www.biosecurity.govt.nz/

Godwin LS (2003) Hull fouli ng of maritime vessels as a pathway for marine species

invasions to the Hawaiian Islands. Biofouling 19: 123-131

Gollasch S (2002) The importance of ship hull fouling as a vector of species

introductions into the Nort h Sea. Biofouling 18: 105-121

Guidebook of Introduced Marine Species of Hawai’ i. Bishop Museum and Hawaii Biological Survey. http://www2.bishopmuseum.or g/HBS/invertguide/index.htm

Harris SE, Slate EV. (1999) Lamp Ray: Ship hull asse ssment for value, safety and readiness. Oceans, 1:

493-500.

Hewitt CL, Campbell ML, Thresher RE, Martin RB, Boyd S, Cohen BF, Currie DR, Gomon MF, Keough MJ, Lewis JA, Lockett MM, Mays N, MacArthur MA, O'Hara TD, Poore GCB, Ross DJ, Storey MJ, Watson JE, Wilson RS. (2004) Introduced and cryptogenic species in Port Philip Bay, Victoria, Australia. Mar Biol 144: 183-202

Hines AH, Ruiz GM (2000) Marine invasive speci es and biodiversity of South Central Alaska. Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council of Prince William Sound. Anchorage AK.

International Association of Classi fication Societies. (2007) IACS guidelines for surveys, assessment and repair of hull structure. http://www.iacs.org.uk/document/public/Publicati ons/Guidelines_and_recommendations/PDF/REC_76 _pdf216.pdf

International Association of Cla ssification Societies. (2007) Double hull oil tankers- guidelines for surveys assessment and repair of hull structures. http://www.iacs.org.uk/document/public/Publicati ons/Guidelines_and_recommendations/PDF/REC_96 _pdf566.pdf

Lynn DC, Bolander GS (1999) Performing ship hull in spections using a remote ly operated vehicle. Oceans, 2: 555-562.

McGee S, Piorkowski R, Ruiz G (2006) Analysis of r ecent vessel arrivals and ba llast water discharge in Alaska: Toward assessing ship-mediate d invasion risk. Mar Poll Bull 52:1634-1645

Minchin D, Gollasch S. (2003) F ouling and ships' hulls: how changing circumstances and spawning events may result in the spread of exotic species. Biof ouling 19:1, 111-122

Mineur F, Johnson MP, Maggs CA, Stegenga H (2007) Hull fouling on commercial ships58 as a vector of macroalgal introdu ction. Mar Biol DOI 10.1007/s00227-006-0567-y

National Benthic Inventory. National O ceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://www.nbi.noaa.gov/

National Exotic Marine and Estuarine Species Information System. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. http://i nvasions.si.edu/nemesis/

National Introduced Pest Information System. Au stralian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization. http://www.marine.csiro.au/crimp/

Non-indigenous Aquatic Species. USGS. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/

Non-native Aquatic Species in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Regions. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. http://nis.gs mfc.org/nis_alphabetic_list.php

Pacunski RE, Palsson WA, Greene HG, Gunderson D. (2008) Conducting visual surveys with a small

ROV in shallow water. Alaska Sea Grant Colle ge Program. University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Parry DM, Nickell LA, Kendall MA, Burrows MT, Pilgrim DA, Jones MB. (2002) Comparison of abundance and spatial distribution of burrowing mega fauna from diver and remotely operated vehicle observations. Marine Ecological Progress Series, Vol. 244: 89-93

Parry DM, Kendall MA, Pilgrim DA, Jones MB. (2003) Id entification of patch st ructure within marine benthic landscapes using a remotely operated vehi cle. Journal of Experime ntal Marine Biology and Ecology 285-286(2003): 497-511

Ray, G.L. (2005) Invasive Marine and Estuarine An imals of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.

Ruiz GM, Smith G. (2005) Biological study of contai ner vessels at the Port of Oakland. The Port of

Oakland. Oakland CA.

Ruiz GM, Hines AH. (2000) Biologica l invasions at cold-water coasta l ecosystems: ballast mediated

introductions in Port Valdez/Prince William Sou nd, Final Report to Regional Citizens Advisory

Council of Prince William Sound

Ruiz GM, Huber T, Larson K, McCann L, Steves B, Fofonoff P, Hines AH. (2006) Biological invasion’s in Alaska’s coastal marine ecosyst ems: establishing a baseline. Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council. Anchorage AK.

Severn Trent De Nora. Sanilec. http://www.sever ntrentservices.com/en_us/d enora/sanilec/index.aspx

Savarese J. (2005) Preventing and managing hull fouli ng: international, federa l, and state laws and policies. Proceedings of the 14 th biennial coastal zone conference. New Orleans LA.

Showalter S, Savarese J. (2004) Th e existing U.S. Legal regime to pr event the hull transport of aquatic invasive species. Sea Grant Law Center, California Sea Grant Extension Program. http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/S GLC/National/hulltransport.pdf59 Takata L, Faulkner M, Gilmore S. (2006) Commercial vessel fouling in Califor nia: analysis, evaluation, and recommendations to reduce nonindigenous species release from the non-ballast water vector. California State Legislature.

Vessel General Permit for discharges incidental to the normal operations of vessels (VGP). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Nationa l Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

Wasson K, Zabin CJ, Bedinger L, Diaz MC, Pearse JS. (2001) Biological invasions of estuaries without international shipping: the importa nce of intraregional transport. Biological Conservation 102: 143-

153.

Wilson Walton. ClearFlo System Operation. http ://www.wilsonwalton.com /clearflo/cf_sysop.htm

Wonham MJ, Carlton JT. (2005) Trends in marine biol ogical invasions at local and regional scales: the

Northeast Pacific Ocean as a model system. Biological Invasions 7: 369-392.60 Appendix Table 1. Voyage histories of vessels en tering Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008. NW =

Pacific northwest of United States + British Columbia , SF = San Francisco Bay area, S. CA = southern

California.

2005 2006

Total 814 Total 617

Asia 39 Asia 39
Japan 15 Japan 21

South Korea 12 South Korea 9

China 4 China 6

Russia 4 Russia 14 Malaysia 2 Malaysia 1

India 2 India 0 Singapore 19 Singapore 9

Vietnam 1 Vietnam 0

NW 574 NW 404
Oregon 39 Oregon 15 Puget Sound 390 Puget Sound 253

British Columbia 195 British Columbia 160

SF 195 SF 142

S.CA 113 S.CA 100

S. Pacific 14 S. Pacific 15

Other 7 Other 11

Mexico 10 Mexico 24

2007 2008

Total 578 Total 575

Asia 32 Asia 28
Japan 20 Japan 11

South Korea 8 South Korea 6

China 7 China 8

Russia 10 Russia 7 Malaysia 3 Malaysia 0

India 1 India 1 Singapore 2 Singapore 11

Vietnam 0 Vietnam 0

NW 460 NW 453
Oregon 13 Oregon 19 Puget Sound 136 Puget Sound 280

British Columbia 153 British Columbia 179

SF 160 SF 163

S.CA 108 S.CA 83

S. Pacific 24 S. Pacific 25

Other 19 Other 24

Mexico 32 Mexico 3161Appendix Table 2. Number of arrivals to Alaskan ports of interest 2005-2008 by vessel type.2005Cape Hinchinbrook College Fjord Cordova Kodiak PWS Seward Valdez Whittier Tatilek Total ResultFishing 00 2 30 4 25 2 045Freight 00 0 81 2 94 1 097Passenger 0 16 6 15 1 6011 78 6193Tank 160 0 0 7 0382 0 0405Towing 00 4 10 0 412 41 071Other 00 0 2 0 00 0 02Grand Total1616 12 138 14 75 414 122 68132006Cape Hinchinbrook College Fjord Cordova Kodiak PWS Seward Valdez Whittier Tatilek Total ResultFishing 00 4 36 4 51 2 052Freight 00 0 43 2 83 0 056Passenger 0 0 2 10 1 431 69 0126Tank 10 0 0 9 0312 1 0323Towing 00 1 4 0 55 35 050Other 00 1 3 0 30 0 07Grand Total10 8 96 16 64 322 107 06142007Cape Hinchinbrook College Fjord Cordova Kodiak PWS Seward Valdez Whittier Tatilek Total ResultFishing 00 3 18 7 50 0 033Freight 00 0 45 2 45 0 056Passenger 0 0 0 4 0 560 64 0124Tank 60 0 0 3 1296 0 0306Towing 00 1 5 0 57 34 052Other 00 0 3 0 00 0 03Grand Total60 4 75 12 71 308 98 05742008Cape Hinchinbrook College Fjord Cordova Kodiak PWS Seward Valdez Whittier Tatilek Total ResultFishing 00 3 23 8 13 1 039Freight 00 1 40 2 91 1 054Passenger 0 1 0 12 0 668 50 0137Tank 00 0 0 0 0282 0 0282Towing 00 1 5 0 15 35 047Other 00 0 1 1 40 0 06Grand Total01 5 81 11 81 299 87 056562 Appendix Table 3. Voyage types of arrivals by po rt, 2005-2008, for vessels entering Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008.

Voyage Type by Port

2005 Domestic Other Total WC Total Transp Grand Total
Cape Hinchinbrook 2 0 13 1 16 College Fjord 1 0 15 0 16

Cordova 9 0 3 0 12

Kodiak 70 0 45 7 122

Prince William Sound 1 0 12 1 14

Seward 9 1 55 11 76

Valdez 29 0 335 27 391

Whittier 16 0 104 2 122

Tatilek 1 0 5 0 6

Total Result 138 1 58 7 49 775

2006 Domestic Other Total WC Total Transp Grand Total
Cape Hinchinbrook 0 0 1 0 1 College Fjord 0 0 0 0 0

Cordova 5 0 2 1 8

Kodiak 64 0 21 11 96

Prince William Sound 4 0 12 0 16

Seward 15 2 39 7 63

Valdez 34 1 266 16 317

Whittier 2 0 94 11 107

Tatilek 0 0 0 0 0

Total Result 124 3 43 5 46 608

2007 Domestic Other Total WC Total Transp Grand Total
Cape Hinchinbrook 0 0 6 0 6 College Fjord 0 0 0 0 0

Cordova 3 0 0 1 4

Kodiak 51 0 17 7 75

Prince William Sound 6 0 6 0 12

Seward 4 3 52 13 72

Valdez 6 1 288 11 306

Whittier 6 0 76 16 98

Tatilek 0 0 0 0 0

Total Result 76 4 44 5 48 573

2008 Domestic Other Total WC Total Transp Grand Total
Cape Hinchinbrook 0 0 0 0 0 College Fjord 0 1 0 0 1

Cordova 3 0 2 0 5

Kodiak 55 1 20 5 81

Prince William Sound 5 1 5 0 11

Seward 3 2 60 16 81

Valdez 8 0 275 16 299

Whittier 3 0 76 8 87

Tatilek 0 0 0 0 0

Total Result 77 5 438 45 56563 Appendix Table 4. Voyage types of incoming arriva ls by vessel type, 2005-2008, for vessels entering Alaskan ports of interest, 2005-2008.

Voyage Types 2005 Other Fishing Freight Passenger Tank Towing Total

Domestic 0 30 31 43 19 14 137

Other 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total Transp 2 0 15 7 23 2 49

Total WC 0 14 37 142 340 55 588

Total Result 2 44 83 193 382 71 775

2006 Other Fishing

Boat Freight Ship Passenger Tank Ship Towing

vessel Total

Domestic 0 33 36 14 32 9 124

Other 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 Total Transp 4 1 11 18 12 0 46

Total WC 3 20 5 93 273 41 435

Total Result 7 54 53 126 318 50 608

2007 Other Fishing

Boat Freight Ship Passenger Tank Ship Towing

vessel Total

Domestic 0 16 48 6 5 1 76

Other 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 Total Transp 2 0 10 23 8 4 47

Total WC 1 14 1 94 291 44 445

Total Result 3 30 59 124 304 52 572

2008 Other Fishing

Boat Freight Ship Passenger Tank Ship Towing

vessel Total

Domestic 0 20 44 2 5 6 77

Other 2 0 0 3 0 0 5 Total Transp 3 0 10 19 13 0 45

Total WC 1 17 2 113 264 41 438

Total Result 6 37 56 137 282 47 56564 Appendix Table 5. Voyage history of incoming arriva ls to Alaskan ports of interest 2005-2008 by vessel

type.

Voyage history per year by ship type 2005 Fishing Freight Passenger Tank Towing Other Total

Asia 0 15 7 14 2 1 39

NW 14 42 146 312 58 0 572

SF 0 0 4 191 0 0 195

S. CA 0 0 6 107 0 0 113

South Pacific 0 0 1 12 0 1 14

Other 0 3 4 0 0 0 7

Mexico 0 1 9 0 0 0 10

2006 Fishing Freight Passenger Tank Towing Other Total

Asia 1 12 14 9 0 3 39

NW 15 5 109 233 42 2 406

SF 0 0 1 141 0 0 142

S. CA 0 2 0 98 0 0 100

South Pacific 1 2 5 4 0 3 15

Other 0 3 3 1 0 2 9

Mexico 0 1 20 1 0 2 24

2007 Fishing Freight Passenger Tank Towing Other Total

Asia 0 10 14 4 0 2 30

NW 11 3 116 276 46 1 453

SF 0 0 0 158 2 0 160

S. CA 0 0 0 108 0 0 108

South Pacific 0 0 12 4 4 2 22

Other 1 1 8 0 4 1 15

Mexico 0 0 28 0 3 1 32

2008 Fishing Freight Passenger Tank Towing Other Total

Asia 0 9 10 9 0 0 28

NW 10 4 132 255 42 4 447

SF 1 0 0 162 0 0 163

S. CA 0 0 0 80 0 2 82

South Pacific 0 4 11 6 1 3 25

Other 0 4 12 0 4 3 23

Mexico 0 1 27 0 0 2 3065Appendix Table 6. Distribution of fouling organisms outside their native ranges.Organisms notated with a ‘B’ are primarily benthic/epibenthic species that have been associated with hull fouling in other studies. WA=Washington, OR=Oregon, HB= Humboldt Bay, Socal= Southern California, Chspk= Chesapeake Bay, NE-US=Northeast US, Gmex= Gulfof Mexico, AU= Australia, HI= Hawaii, MED= Mediterranean, Neuro= Northern Europe, BC= British Columbia, AK= AlaskaWAOR HBSocalSFChspkNE-USGmexAU HIMEDNeuroBCAKTotalAscidiansBotrylloides violaceusx x x x x xxx 8AscidiansBotryllus schlosserix x x x x xx xx 9AscidiansCiona savignyixx x x4AscidiansDidemnum vexillumxx x xx5AscidiansMolgula manhattensisx x x x x xxx8AscidiansStyela clavax x x x xxxx x9BryozoansBugula stoloniferaxxx x x5BryozoansWatersipora subtorquatax x x xx x x7ByrozoansBowerbankia gracilisx x x x xx xx8ByrozoansBugula neritinax x x x x xx x x x x x12ByrozoansConopeum tenuissimumxx2ByrozoansCryptosula pallasianax x x x xxx x x x10ByrozoansSchizoporella unicornis (japonica)x x x x xx x x x x x x12SpongesHalichondria bowerbankix x x3SpongesHaliclona sppx x x3SpongesMicrociona (Clathria) proliferaxxx3Cnidarians- AnthozoansDiadumene cinctaxxx3Cnidarians-anthozoanDiadumene leucolenax xxx4Cnidarians-anthozoanDiadumene lineatax x x x x xxxx x10Cnidarians-hydrozoansBlackfordia virginicaxx xx4Cnidarians-hydrozoansCladonema radiatumx1Cnidarians-hydrozoansCordylophora caspiax x xx xxxx8Cnidarians-hydrozoansEctopleura (tubularia) (pinauay) croceax x x x xxx 7Cnidarians-hydrozoansGarveia franciscanax xxx 466WAOR HBSocalSFChspkNE-USGmexAU HIMEDNeuroBCAKTotalEntoproctaBarentsia benedenix xx xxxx 7ForaminiferansTrochahammina hadaixxx 3Mollusc-bivalviaMytilus edulisxx2Mollusc-bivalviaMytilus galloprovincialisx xx xxxx7Molluscs-bivalviaTeredo navalisx xx xxx6BMolluscs-gastropodsMyosotella myosotisx x x x x xx7BMolluscs-nudibranchTenellia adspersaxx xx4BPolychaetesHeteromastus filiformisx x x x xxxx x 9BPolychaetesNeanthes succineax xxx4BPolychaetesPolydora cornutax x x x xx xx8BPolychaetesPseudopolydora kempix x x x xxx7BPolychaetesPseudopolydora paucibranchiatax x x x xx6BPolychaetesStreblospio benedictix x x x xxx7BArthropods-AmphipodsAmpithoe validax x x x xxx7BArthropods-AmphipodsCaprella muticax x x x xxx7BArthropods-AmphipodsChelura terebransxx x x4BArthropods-AmphipodsIncisocalliope (Parapleustes) derzhavinix x xx4BArthropods-AmphipodsJassa marmoratax x x x xxx 7BArthropods-AmphipodsMelita nitidax x x x xx6BArthropods-AmphipodsMonocorphium acherusicumx x x x x xx x x x x x12BArthropods-AmphipodsMonocorphium insidiosumx x x x xx xx8BArthropods-barnaclesBalanus improvisusx xxx4BArthropods-decapodsRhithropanopeus harrisiixxx3BArthropods-IsopodsIais californicax x x x x5BArthropods-IsopodsLimnoria quadripunctataxxx3BArthropods-isopodsLimnoria tripunctatax x x x4BArthropods-IsopodsSphaeroma quoyanumx x x x4BArthropods-isopodsSynidotea laevidorsalisxx xx4BArthropods-TanaidsSinelobus stanfordix x x x xxx x8Sources:National Introduced Pest Information System (CSIRO), National Benthic Inventory(NOAA), North European and Baltic Networkon Invasive Alien Species (NOBANIS), NationalExotic Marine and Estuarine Species Information System (SERC), Non-indigenous Aquatic67Species (USGS), Guidebook of Introduced Marine Species of Hawaii (Hawaii Biological Survey), Non-native Aquatic Species in theGulf ofMexico and South Atlantic Regions (Gulf State Marine Fisheries Commission), Atlas of Exotic Species in the Mediterranean (CIESM), NISFact Sheet (PWSRCAC), Ashton et al (2008),Boyd et al (2002), Cohen (2004), Cohen & Carlton (1995, 1998), Cohen et al (1998, 2001,2002, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c), Hines & Ruiz (2000), McGee et al (2006), Ray (2005)(ANSRP), Ruiz et al (2006), Wonham & Carlton (2005).68Appendix Table 7. Anti-fouling paints used and hull locations where applied.ReportYear Vessel NameManufacturer Antifouling Product Name Biocide1 Biocide2HullSidesHullBottomSeaChestsSeaChestGratings PropellerRopeGuardPropellerShaftPreviousDockingBlocks Thrusters RudderBilgeKeels2008 ALASKAN EXPLORER International Paint Ltd. Interclene 245NA (BRA570, 572) Cuprous OxideTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEFALSETRUEFALSE FALSETRUE TRUE2009 ALASKAN EXPLORER International Paint Ltd. Interclene 245NA (BRA570, 572) Cuprous OxideTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEFALSETRUEFALSE FALSETRUE TRUE2008 ALASKAN FRONTIER International Paint Ltd. Interclene 245NA (BRA570, 572) Cuprous OxideTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEFALSETRUEFALSE FALSETRUE TRUE2009 ALASKAN FRONTIER International Paint Ltd. Interclene 245NA (BRA570, 572) Cuprous OxideTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEFALSETRUEFALSE FALSETRUE TRUE2008 ALASKAN LEGEND International Paint Ltd. Interclene 245NA (BRA570, 572) Cuprous OxideTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEFALSETRUEFALSE FALSETRUE TRUE2009 ALASKAN LEGEND International Paint Ltd. Interclene 245NA (BRA570, 572) Cuprous OxideTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEFALSETRUEFALSE FALSETRUE TRUE2008 ALASKAN NAVIGATOR International Paint Ltd. Interclene 245NA (BRA570, 572) Cuprous OxideTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEFALSETRUEFALSE FALSETRUE TRUE2009 ALASKAN NAVIGATOR International Paint Ltd. Interclene 245Cuprous Oxide Zineb TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEFALSETRUEFALSE FALSETRUE TRUE2009 CAPTAIN H. A. DOWNING Jotun Paints Hydroclean (AKA SeaGuardian) Cuprous OxideTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEFALSE FALSETRUEFALSETRUEFALSE2008 KODIAKInternational Paint Ltd.Interspeed 340 (BQA 341-344,346, 347, 349)Cuprous Oxide Zineb TRUEFALSETRUE TRUEFALSETRUEFALSE FALSETRUE TRUE2009 KODIAKInternational Paint Ltd.Interspeed 340 (BQA 341-344,346, 347, 349)Cuprous Oxide Zineb TRUEFALSETRUE TRUE TRUEFALSETRUEFALSETRUE TRUE2008 MISSISSIPPI VOYAGER International Paint Ltd. Interspeed 640 (BRA 640-644) Cuprous OxideTRUE TRUEFALSE FALSE FALSETRUE TRUEFALSETRUE TRUE2009 MISSISSIPPI VOYAGER International Paint Ltd. Interspeed 640 (BRA 640-644) Cuprous OxideTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEFALSETRUE TRUE2009 OVERSEAS NEW YORK Chugoku Marine Paint Sea Grandprix 500, 500M Cuprous OxideCopperPyrithione TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEFALSE FALSE FALSE FALSETRUE TRUE2008 POLAR ADVENTURE International Paint Ltd. Intersleek (none specified) Biocide-free SiliconeTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUETRUE2008 POLAR DISCOVERY International Paint Ltd. Intersleek (none specified) Biocide-free SiliconeTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUETRUE2009 POLAR DISCOVERY International Paint Ltd. Intersleek 757Biocide-free SiliconetopcoatTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE2008 POLAR ENDEAVOUR International Paint Ltd. Intersleek (none specified) Biocide-free SiliconeTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUETRUE2009 POLAR ENDEAVOUR International Paint Ltd. Intersleek 757Biocide-free SiliconetopcoatTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEFALSETRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE2008 POLAR ENTERPRISE International Paint Ltd. Intersleek (none specified) Biocide-free SiliconeTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE2009 POLAR ENTERPRISE International Paint Ltd. Intersleek 757Biocide-free SiliconetopcoatFALSETRUE TRUE TRUEFALSETRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE2008 POLAR RESOLUTION International Paint Ltd. Intersleek 757Biocide-free SiliconetopcoatFALSETRUE TRUE TRUEFALSETRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE2009 POLAR RESOLUTION International Paint Ltd. Intersleek 757Biocide-free SiliconetopcoatTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEFALSE FALSE FALSE FALSETRUEFALSE2008 S/RBAYTOWNInternational Paint Ltd. Intersleek 737Biocide-free Siliconeintermediate coatTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE2009 S/RBAYTOWNInternational Paint Ltd. Intersleek 737Biocide-free Siliconeintermediate coatTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE2008 S/R LONG BEACHInternational Paint Ltd.Interspeed 340 (BQA 341-344,346, 347, 349)Cuprous Oxide Zineb TRUEFALSETRUE TRUEFALSETRUEFALSE FALSETRUE TRUE2009 S/R LONG BEACHInternational Paint Ltd.Interspeed 340 (BQA 341-344,346, 347, 349)Cuprous Oxide Zineb TRUEFALSETRUEFALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE2008 SEABULK ARCTICInternational Paint Ltd. Interclene 245NA (BRA570, 572) Cuprous OxideTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEFALSE FALSETRUEFALSETRUE TRUE2009 SEABULK ARCTICInternational Paint Ltd. Interspeed 340Cuprous Oxide Zineb TRUEFALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE2008 SEABULK PRIDEInternational Paint Ltd. Interclene 245NA (BRA570, 572) Cuprous OxideTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEFALSE FALSETRUEFALSETRUE TRUE2009 SEABULK PRIDEInternational Paint Ltd. Interclene 245NA (BRA570, 572) Cuprous OxideTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEFALSETRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE2008 SIERRAInternational Paint Ltd.Interspeed 340 (BQA 341-344,346, 347, 349)Cuprous Oxide Zineb TRUEFALSETRUE TRUEFALSETRUEFALSE FALSETRUE TRUE2009 SIERRAInternational Paint Ltd. Intersleek 900Biocide-freefluoropolymerTRUEFALSETRUE TRUE TRUEFALSETRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE